Consideration

Question 1

Definition of Consideration - Pollock

Answer 1

‘an act of forebearance, or the promise thereof, is the price of which the promise is bought’

Question 2

McDonnell v Ring

Answer 2

contracts under seal do not need proof of consideration

Question 3

Currie v Misa

Answer 3

for valid consideration one party must profit or bgenefit while the other must suffer a loss or detriment

Question 4

McCoubrey v Thompson

Answer 4

a person can only enforce a promise if they themselves have provided consideration

Question 5

McEvoy v Belfast Banking Co

Answer 5

father had deposit with bank in a joint account with his son – he died – executors were allowed take money by bank which
they lost – son took claim

where one party makes a contract on behalf of another and himself,
then consideration supplied by one will suffice to enable the other to
enforce the contract

Question 6

McDonnell v Ring

Answer 6

Adequacy

consideration need not be adequate but sufficient and can never be past

Question 7

ACC Bank v Dillon

Answer 7

Adequacy

Courts will rarely condemn a bargan for being inadequate

Question 8

Bolton v Madden

Answer 8

Adequacy

the adequacy of consideration is for the parties to decide not the courts

Question 9

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 9

Adequacy

1 euro annual rent deemed adequate

Question 10

Chappell v Nestle

Answer 10

Adequacy

a contracting prty can stipulare what consideration he chooses

Question 11

O’Neill v Murphy

Answer 11

Sufficiency

consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient - sufficien consideration is tangible with readily ascertainable value

prayers not valid consideration

Question 12

Hamer v Sidway

Answer 12

Sufficiency

1. Acts of forebearance

not drinking and smoking - right to do so normally - so this is valid consideration

Question 13

O’Keefe v Ryanair

Answer 13

Sufficiency

1. Acts of forebearance

waiving anonymity and enterign media campaigns - valid consideration

Question 14

Collins v Godfrey

Answer 14

Sufficiency

2. Performance of pre-existing duty

loss of time attending court - not valid consideration - normal public duty

Question 15

Harris v Sheffield

Answer 15

Sufficiency

2. Performance of pre-existing duty

police given more money to protect particularly dangerous areas - valid consideration

Question 16

McKerring v Minister for Agriculture

Answer 16

Sufficiency

2. Performance of pre-existing duty

adhering to strict conditions of a medical trial - valid

Question 17

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 17

Sufficiency

3. Pre-existing contractual relationship

seamen - motivated by extra payment to return home with ships - not valid as this was already their job

Question 18

Ocean Shipping v Hyundi

Answer 18

Sufficiency

3. Pre-existing contractual relationship

affirmed Silk v Myrick

Question 19

Hartley v Ponsonby

Answer 19

Sufficiency

3. Pre-existing contractual relationship

exception:17 of 37 sea crew deserted -it was held while
under Stilk the sailors weren’t entitled to additional pay – here the loss of numbers made the journey perilous than the one they agreed, therefore promise for extra pay was enforceable as the crew members provided fresh consideration by for a new set of more
dangerous duties.

Question 20

Kenny v An Post

Answer 20

Sufficiency

3. Pre-existing contractual relationship

extra 15 minute break - not valid - they were already contracted to work those hours - nothing about the service had changed

Question 21

William v Roffrey Brothers

Answer 21

Sufficiency

3. Pre-existing contractual relationship
   - relaxing of this rule

Provided a party derives an added benefit from the other
party agreeing to carry out those obligations – the added benefit here being not havingto get another contract, avoiding a penalty clause that was due– this can be considered
fresh consideration

Question 22

Pinnells case

Answer 22

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

A creditor’s promise to accept part-payment in full satisfaction of debt is not enforceable
because it is not supported by fresh consideration

Question 23

Foakes v Beer

Answer 23

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

Affirms Pinnels case

Question 24

The Barge Inn v Quinn

Answer 24

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

Laffoy J ‘it is beyond question that the rule in Pinnells case still
represents the law in Ireland.’

Question 25

Re Selectmove

Answer 25

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

William v Roffrey brothers does not apply to this

Question 26

Drogheda v Fairtlough

Answer 26

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

EXCEPTIONS - introduction of a new element

it was held payment of a less sum is insufficient – however
payment of a lesser sum combined with a collateral advantage attending the transaction
may be sufficient.

Question 27

MWB Business v Rock Advertising

Answer 27

Sufficiency

4. Part payment of existing debt

EXCEPTIONS - introduction of a new element

tenant in office fell into rent arrears – landlord and
tenant agreed to reschedule payments and clear debt at later stage – court held this was
good consideration as landlord received some payment immediately and avoided the
disbenefit of the building being empty and causing further losses.

Question 28

Rosscorla v Thomas

Answer 28

Past consideration is no consideration

Question 29

Re McCardle

Answer 29

Past consideration
children entitled to home under will – wife of one child did improvements to
house – after done, children said would be reimbursed – this was unenforceable as the work
has already been completed therefore past consideration was unenforceable.

Question 30

Lampleigh v Brathwait:

Answer 30

Exceptions to past-consideration

D killed man and asked P to obtain royal pardon for him – went to extensive efforts and D
promised payment – promise was enforceable as it was not ‘mere voluntary courtesy’
It was an undertaking taken at the request of D on the understanding there would be
payment – therefore it was enforceable
If not someone could hire plumber and then not pay for it – he does his work with the
understanding he will be paid

Question 31

Pao On v Lau You Long

Answer 31

Exceptions to past-consideration

D asked p not to sell shares for a year which p agreed – d then subsequently promised he
would indemnify P if the price of shares fell
This occurred – he refused
Lord Scarman set down conditions which all must be satisfied (which were in this case) for
consideration which seems on the face to be ‘past’ could be enforceable:
1 – Act must be done at request of promisor
2 – parties must have anticipated the act was to be renumerated or by conferral of
some other benefit
3- payment/ conferring of benefit would have been legally enforceable had it been
promised in advance