Consideration Flashcards
Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669
-occupants of house carried out some improvements, valued at £488. Once the work was finished owners signed doc to repay the sum.
-HELD since work had been completed before promise to pay, consideration was in the past and therefore not valid.
Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105
-D asked P to get him a King’s pardon. P attempted and travelled to and from London and Newmarket.
-Later D promised £100 but never paid. P sued and D argued consideration was passed
-HELD - P was entitled to be paid on the ground D had requested his services
(not merely a bare promise, when put together with a previous request)
Bradford v Roulston (1858) 8 IRCL 468
Exception to rule that past consideration is no consideration.
It is not merely a bare promise, when put together with a previous request.
Re Casey’s Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104
Stresses the fact that the parties at all times envisaged that the services would ultimately be paid for.
(exception to past consideration is no consideration).
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614
Stresses the fact that the parties at all times envisaged that the services would ultimately be paid for.
(exception to past consideration is no consideration).
Price v Easton (1833) 4B & Ad 433
A person to whom a promise was made can only enforce it if they provided consideration for it.
Tweddle v Atkinson
“no stranger too the consideration can take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit”
McCoubray v Thompson (1868) 2 IRCL 226
A person to whom a promise was made can only enforce it if they provided consideration for it.
Grogan v Cooke (1812) 2 Bal & B 234
Rule that the courts will not inquire into the adequacy if consideration.
Manners LJ ‘if there be a fair and bona fide consideration the court will not enter minutely into it and see that it is full and ample.’
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
Consideration must be capable of being valued in monetary terms.
O’ Neill v murphy [19360 NI 16
Consideration must be capable of being valued in monetary terms
Hamer v Sidway (1891)
-agreement maid by an uncle promising to pay his nephew $5,000 if he refrained from indulging in alcohol, smoking ,swearing and gambling while at uni.
-HELD- in foregoing that which he was legally entitled to do, he had suffered detriment, this being adequate consideration for the agreement.
Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87
-D advised the sales of P’s record for 1/6 +3 Chocolate wrappers. Under the Copyright Act 1956, D had to pay P 6.25% of the rtail selling price.
-D offered to pay 6.25% of 1/6, P argued the retail sellling price was 1/6 plus the price of 3 bars of chocolate.
HELD- wrappers formed part of the consideration even though they were no value to the buyer or D.
Bainbridge v Firmstone (1838) 8A & E 743
Something which may seem worthless may nevertheless be held to constitute good consideration.
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851
Something which may seem worthless may nevertheless be held to constitute good consideration.
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1B & Ad 950
-P was subpoenaed to give evidence on behalf of D. D promised him 6 guineas.
P gave evidence, D refused to pay. P sued him.
HELD
-a personwho has been subpoenaed is legally obliged to attend therefore P had provided no consideration for D’s promise to pay
Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270
If the plaintiff does more than would be expected of them in the bare discharge of duty, the extra service will constitute good consideration.
Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317
-P and 10 other sailors signed on to sail from london to the Baltic and back.
-2 men deserted, so the captain promised that if the crew shared the work of the deserters, they would also share their wages.
-When they got back to London, the captain refused to pay extra wages
HELD
- By sailing the ship home, P was only performing his obligation under the original contract therefore he had not provided any consideration for the promise to pay him more.
Harris v Watson (1791) Peake 102
If all the promisee does is perform or promise to perform something they have already contracted with the promisor to do, they are not providing any consideration.
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872
Court held that the sailors had provided good consideration because they had done more than was expected under their original contract.
Hanson v Royden (1867-68) LR 3 CP 47
Court held that the sailors had provided good consideration because they had done more than was expected under their original contract.
Williams v Roffey Brothers [1990] 1 All ER 512
-D building contractor entered a contract to refurbish a block of 27 flats. The carpentry work was subcontraccted to P for 20k. P was paid an account.
-P had only completed 9 flats and had been paid 16k and was in financial difficulty. It would be impossible to complete the remaining work for 4k.
-Both parties agreed that P would be paid an extra 10k (£575 per flat) Had P stoppped working, D fined.
-P finished 8 more flats, was only paid for 2 and brought action against D, who argued there was no consideration for the promise to pay back the extra 10k.
HELD- P had provided consideration for the promise to pay the extra 10k. By finishing the work in time, D would not have to pay a penalty to the developer. Avoiding the penalty was a practical benefit to D, which meant that P had provided consideration.
Recognition of a new doctrine; economic duress
Truck & Machinery Sales v Marubeni Komatsu
If the new agreement results in any practical benefit for the promisor, the promise will be binding.
(conflicts with Stilk v Myrick)
Adam Opel v Mitras Automotive [2007] EWHC 3481
Courts have a more refined mechanism for distinguishing between extortative and non-extortative renegotiations.
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
The rule in Pinnel’s Case states that payment of a lesser sum is no satisfaction of the debt.
Consideration isn’t given, party can break the promise.
Pinnel’s case (1602)
(case itself in an exception to the rule)
-Cole owed Pinnel £8 10s due on 11th Nov. he paid £5 2s on Oct 1st. P sued for balance, won but only due to a flaw in paperwork otherwise Cole would have won because part payment was made on an earlier date.
-The payment of a lesser sum is no satisfaction of the debt unless payment of the lesser sum is accompanied by a new element, introduced at the request of the creditor. (eg. earlier time)
Sibree v Tripp (1846)
Exception to rule in Pinnel’s case.
Payment by negotiable instrument (eg. Promissory notes or bills of exchanges) constitutes doing something different.
Mayor of Drogheda v Fairclough (1858)
Exception to rule in Pinnel’s case.
Payment by negotiable instrument (eg. Promissory notes or bills of exchanges) constitutes doing something different.
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
(relates to exception to rule of P)
Payment by cheque does not constitute payment by a different means, held exception to the rule did not apply.
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557
-D owed P £18. D’s father made an agreement with P, promising to pay £9 if P promised not to sue for the balance. Father paid and P sued the son for the balance.
-HELD P was not entitled to recover the balance because to allow him to do so would be a fraud on the father.
Scotson v Pegg (1861)
(bound by contractual obligation to third party)
-P contracted with X to deliver coal to x or to the order of x.
-X agreed to sell the coal to D and told P to deliver it to D.
-D agreed with P that if P delivered the coal to him, D would unload it. D then refused to unload it.
-HELD there was consideration-detriment to x
Shadwell v Shadwell (1860)
-P’s uncle promised him £150 in view of his upcoming marriage.
-When P attempted to recover unpaid instalments, D argued that as P was contractually bound to maryy his finacee, no consideration was provided for his uncle’s promise to pay £150.
-HELD- P had provided consideration for his uncle’s promise, the benefit to the uncle was the marriage of a close relative being a matter of interest to him.
Also detriment to nephew who had incurred extra expenses in reliance of his uncles promise.
Roscorla v Thomas
Past consideration is no consideration.
FACT- The claimant agreed to buy a horse from the defendant. The defendant later falsely promised that the horse as ‘free from vice’. The claimant sued the defendant for breach of his promise. The defendant argued that the promise was not a term of any contract because the claimant had not provided any consideration for it.
Smith v Morrison
??? Past consideration is no consideration
Provincial Bank of Ireland v O’Donnell
(past cons is no cons)
The appellants were adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland on petition by the Bank. The debt was not discharged and the Bank appointed a Receiver. The High Court made an order that the O’Donnell children vacate the premises. The appellants requested the High Court judge recuse himself on grounds of objective bias.
HELD-
He favoured upholding the order of the High Court in granting the interlocutory injunctions sought, including that the appellants vacate Gorse Hill.
Tweedle v Atkinsaon
no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit
