consideration

Question 1

consideration

Answer 1

both parties to a contract will give something to the other by way of exchange
something must be exchanged - both parties must give something.
A contract is a bargain not a gift

Question 2

can executory or executed

Answer 2

> executory - to do/give in the future
executed- done/given now

Question 3

Currie v Misa

Answer 3

Consideration must be sufficient
(have some value) but does not
need to be adequate (equal
value)

Question 4

consideration must move from the promisee

Answer 4

the person can only enforce a promise made to them if they gave something in exchange for that promise

Question 5

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 5

The contract was between the father of the bride and the father of the groom, to give money to the bride and groom. The groom himself had given no consideration therefore, couldn’t sue for the money - even though husband was named in the agreement

Question 6

consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate

Answer 6

‘sufficient’ - consideration must have some value
‘adequate’ -means of equal value, which is not necessary because people are free to make whatever bargains they want

Question 7

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 7

before a man died he made a wish that his wife could remain in the house, she could do so for £1 a year - due to this consideration was provided so they couldn’t evict her later on

Question 8

emotional promises are not sufficient

Answer 8

conflicting cases
>White v Bluett
> Ward v Bytham

Question 9

White v Bluett

Answer 9

sone owed father money and wrote a promissory note, the father died without it being paid so fathers executory sued for the money. Son claimed father promised to write off debt if he stopped complaining about the way his father was handling his assets.
No consideration - not sufficient, no legal right to complain
natural love + affection = no consideration

Question 10

Ward v Bytham

Answer 10

The father agreed that mother could look after the daughter and agreed with a letter he’d send money if she was happy + well looked after.
Father eventually stopped making the payments.
No legal obligation to keep the child happy - consideration

Question 11

past consideration not sufficient

Answer 11

anything which has already been done before the other party promises anything, is not consideration
NO EXCHANGE
‘Emmas day’ - Emma went round to a friends house to babysit and said in exchange she’d help with HW

Question 12

Re McArdle

Answer 12

Mrs McArdle carried out work on the bungalow in which she lived with her husband + his mother.
those inheriting the property signed a document afterwards saying they’d pay £488.
as this was signed afterwards the work was carried out the work in the house - no consideration

Question 13

Exception for past consideration:

Answer 13

there may still be sufficient consideration if there was an implied promise to pay at the time the other party carried out their part

Question 14

Lamplight v Braithwait

Answer 14

Lampleigh rode to Scotland to get a royal pardon for Braithwait (was about to be hung)
Braithwait then promised him £100 but did not
this took significant effort and time
This was not ‘past consideration’ there was an implied promise before the journey that Braithwait would pay - consideration had been exchanged there was a contract

Question 15

performing an existing duty is also not sufficient consideration in a new contract

Answer 15

> Stilk v Myrick

Question 16

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 16

Agreed to do everything they could in an emergency. Sailors already had a duty to sail the ship home under the contract so couldn’t claim for additional wages

Question 17

exception to performing an existing duty:

Answer 17

however, performing an existing duty will be sufficient consideration if something extra is done in return for the new payment (extra benefit)
Hartley v Ponsonby

Question 18

Hartley v Ponsonby

Answer 18

19/36 crew members remained
Reduction in numbers made the voyage much more dangerous and more work for crew
Extra work + danger than originally agreed = good consideration

Question 19

Williams v Roffey

Answer 19

Williams quoted £20,000 but he ran out of money, Roffey had to pay a penalty if they didn’t the flats in time so agreed to pay an extra £10,300 if he completed the work on time.
An existing duty can be good consideration if it gives the other party a factual benefit

Question 20

Shadwell v Shadwell
can be sufficient consideration if an existing contractual duty was owed to a 3rd party

Answer 20

Uncle promised his nephew weekly payments while training as a barrister, in exchange for the nephew marrying his fiancé. He died before completing the payments.
Binding contract
the nephews marriage to his fiancé was sufficient consideration even though it was an existing duty.
The promise was made to a 3rd party not to his fiancé