Consideration Flashcards
Thomas v Thomas
Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient
The £1 a month rent was sufficient (of some nominal value) even though it was not adequate (of full value)
Chappell v Nestle
Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient
The chocolate wrappers provided sufficient value to Nestle, as such they formed part of the consideration.
White v Bluett
Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient
Love and affection is not good consideration, a party cannot give something up that they had no right to in the first place (right to complain)
Ward v Byham
Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient
The agreement to keep the daughter happy was good consideration as she had gone beyond her duty to keep the child safe and cared for.
Tweddle v Atkinson
Consideration must move from the promisee
As the husband was not party to the contract, he had no right to enforce a term within the agreement, even if it did benefit him.
Re McArdle
Past consideration is not good consideration.
Promise of payment over two years after the act had been completed was not good consideration.
Re Casey’s Patent
Past consideration is not good consideration.
There was an implied promise of payment when the party worked on the patents, so this was good consideration and was entitled to his third share.
Lampleigh v Braithewaite
Past consideration is not good consideration.
Where there is an expectation of a reward, or the act is of such important that a fee must have been attached to carrying it out, then this will form good consideration.
Stilk v Myrick
Performing a contractual duty is not good consideration for a further payment
The crew were not entitled to the additional payment as doing more for the same amount of money is an expectation in employment and they had already agreed to do everything that was possible.
Hartley v Ponsonby
Performing a contractual duty is not good consideration for a further payment
The remaining crew did more than was expected of them and the work had become much more dangerous, therefore there was good consideration as they had gone beyond the boarders of the contract.
Williams v Roffey Bros
Performing a contractual duty is not good consideration for a further payment
As a result of giving the promise of an additional payment, they were saved from the detriment of a late penalty fee and benefitted by W’s continued performance.
Collins v Godefroy
Performing a public duty is not good consideration for a further payment
The police officer was already expected to testify at trials, as this was within his public duty there was not good consideration. This is designed to prevent opportunistic exploitation of public officials.
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
Whilst the police were duty bound to protect the pit, they were going above and beyond by providing stronger protected than was necessary, going beyond their obligations.
