Consideration Flashcards
Legal principle: Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient.
Thomas V Thomas (1842)
Before he died, a man expressed the wish that his wife should be allowed to remain in the house after he died. The wish was not stated in the will. The executors carried out this wish and charged the widow a nominal rent of £1 per year. When they later tried to evict her they failed because consideration was provided by the £1 per year rent, meaning there was a legally binding contract.
Legal Principle: consideration needs to be not be adequate but sufficient.
Chappell & Co V Nestle Co Ltd
Nestle stated that whoever sent 3 nestle chocolate bar wrappers would get a record of a song for a fraction of the price that it usually is. The courts held that the chocolate bar wrappers alone would have been valid consideration, as something ‘sufficient’ had been exchanged. Even though they were only chocolate bar wrappers, it is still of nominal value because customers may have bought more chocolate bars than they usually would have intended to beforehand, therefore being a benefit to nestle.
Legal principle: consideration need not be adequate- services can be sufficient.
Ward V Byham
A maintained agreement was made between a mother and father of a child. In exchange for payment from the father, the mother promised to keep the child ‘well looked after and happy’ and also to allow the child to decide whether it wanted to live with the mother or the father. It was held that there was consideration in this agreement. The first of these an existing legal duty but the requirement to keep the child happy and lowing it to choose where to live was enough to be valid consideration. There was a benefit to the father in these parts i.e having a happy child and allowing it to live with him if it wishes.
Legal principle: not all services are not deemed to be ‘sufficient’
Whit v Bluett
A son owed his father money but the farther said he did not have to pay it back if he stopped complaining about the way his estate was to be distributed. After his father passed, his estate he tried to make him pay back the loan. It was held that he did have to pay it back because the service was not sufficient consideration because he had no right to complain in the first place.
Legal principle: past consideration is not good consideration
Re McArdle (1951)
A house was inherited by several children when the mother died. One of the children’s wives had under taken repairs on the bungalow while the mother was still alive. Only AFTER she had done the repairs did the mother say she would reimburse her from her estate once she had died. It was held that this was past consideration, as the realtors took place before the agreements had come into existence.
Legal principle: past consideration is not good consideration
Lampleigh V Braithwait (1615)
Braithwait had been convicted of murder and was to be hanged. Lampleigh agreed to do what he could to obtain a royal pardon. Lampleigh negotiated the pardon, and Braithwait then promised to pay him £100, but did not do so. Braithwait’s argument was that the pardon was past consideration so there was no obligation to pay the £100. The court decided that although the consideration had preceded the promise, the actions taken were at the defendants request and were important that a fee must have been implied.
Legal principle: consideration must move from the promisee.
Tweedle V Atkinson (1861)
Both fathers of a young couple who intended to marry the agreed in writing to each give a sum of money to the couple. The woman’s father died before giving over the money and the husband then sued the executors of the state when they refused to pay the money. Even though the husband was named in the agreement, his claim failed because he had given no consideration and was not a part to the agreement himself.
Legal principle: performing an existing duty cannot be consideration for a new contract.
Colin’s V Godefroy
Services can be seen as something of value. In the above case, the expert witness wanted to enforce -any,ent in his services. This would have been sufficient consideration BUT he was already subpoenaed to appear in court therefore not upheld.
Legal principle: performing an existing duty cannot be consideration for a new contract- example:
Stilk V Myrick
A number of crew members were engaged to sail a voyage. Stilk was one of them , and the wages were £5 per month . As part of their contract, all crew members had agreed as part of their contract to carry out all necessary duties including dealing with emergencies. Two crew deserted during the voyage. The captain agreed to share their two wages between the rest of the crew if they agreed to continue to sail two men short. When they got back, the captain refused to pay the extra money, saying they only did what they were contractually obligated to do. The courts agreed with the captain. The crew had agreed to do everything possible in the case of emergencies therefore this was an already existing legal duty.
