Consideration

Question 1

What is the earlier definition of Consideration?

Answer 1

Currie v Misa (1975) -
“Some right , interest, profit or benefit accruing to one or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other”

Question 2

What is the later definition of Consideration?

Answer 2

Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd (1915) -
“An act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable”

Question 3

What are the five rules for consideration for it to be successful?

Answer 3

1. Need not be adequate but sufficient
2. Past consideration is not good consideration
3. Consideration (something of value) must move from the promisee
4. Performing existing duty cannot be consideration for a new contract
5. A promise to accept part payment of a pre-existing debt in place of the whole debt is not consideration

Question 4

What is rule 1 and the two main cases linked, excluding sufficiency. (just adequate)?

Answer 4

Need not to be adequate but sufficient
1. Thomas v Thomas (1842) * good for law and morals, justice * - Payment of small debt is consideration not a moral obligation of a dead mans will
2. Chapell v Nestle Co. Ltd (1960) - Something nominal counts even if its just wrappers as in the case

Question 5

In reference to rule 1 what are the two main cases about sufficiency?

Answer 5

Sufficiency - something that is real and has value. HOWEVER, there are inconsistencies (evaluation point)
1. White v Bluett (1853) - In Bluett Sr’s will he specified that repayment of debt owed by his son is not necessary, if he ‘stops complaining’ about the distribution of his estates
Court found ‘stop complaining’ to not be of any value making him absolved of paying
2. Ward v Byham (1956) - Going beyond ones legal duty can amount to consideration (keep child happy = no C - but + pay = Consideration)

Question 6

Name a case about the second rule and what is the rule?

Answer 6

Rule two. Consideration has no value if its already been done by the time of the agreement

Re McArdle (1951) - The promise of payment came after the work was done, so no consideration

Question 7

Name the only case for rule 3 and what is the rule?

Answer 7

Rule Three. Consideration must move from the promisee

Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) - Claim failed as he had given no consideration, and was not a party to the agreement

Question 8

Name a case for rule 4 and what is rule four?

Answer 8

Rule four. Performing existing duty cannot be consideration for a new contract

Stilk v Myrick (1809) - A pre-existing contractual obligation was not sufficient consideration

Question 9

What is the excecption to rule four?

Answer 9

There is an exception to the pre-existing duty rule if, there’s an extra element required for the new payment. If so there is consideration

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) - A great change in circumstances and workload amounted to consideration

Question 10

What is rule 5 and a case linking to it?

Answer 10

Rule Five. A promise to accept part payment of a pre-existing debt in place of the whole debt is not consideration

Pinnels’ Case (1602) - Payment of lesser amount to the debt

Question 11

(RULE ONE) What is the significance of Thomas v Thomas (1842)?

Answer 11

Thomas v Thomas (1842) * good for law and morals, justice * - Payment of small debt is consideration not a moral obligation of a dead mans will

Question 12

(RULE ONE) What is the significance of Chapell v Nestle Co. Ltd (1960)?

Answer 12

Chapell v Nestle Co. Ltd (1960) - Something nominal counts even if its just wrappers as in the case

Question 13

(RULE ONE SUFFICIENCY) What is the significance of Ward v Byham (1956)

Answer 13

Going beyond ones legal duty can amount to consideration (keep child happy = no C - but + pay = Consideration)