Consideration Flashcards
What is executory consideration?
A. A promise to do something in the future
B. A promise made after a gift is given
C. Performance of an act in response to a promise
D. Consideration that lacks value
A. A promise to do something in the future
Explanation: Executory consideration is a future promise that forms the basis of most bilateral contracts.
What is executed consideration?
A. A voluntary act done before a promise
B. A promise made in writing
C. An act done without expecting a reward
D. Performance of an act in response to a promise
D. Performance of an act in response to a promise
Explanation: Executed consideration occurs when D does the act, forming the contract in unilateral arrangements (e.g. claiming a reward).
Alice promises to give Bella £100 as a gift. Bella accepts but does not promise anything in return. Is there consideration?
A. Yes, because acceptance was clear
B. No, because Bella gave nothing in return
C. Yes, because gifts are enforceable promises
D. No, because the offer was not in writing
B. No, because Bella gave nothing in return
Explanation: There must be a bargain or exchange — Bella gave no consideration, so no contract.
Which of the following is true about adequacy of consideration?
A. Consideration must match the value of what is received
B. Consideration must be agreed by both parties
C. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
D. Consideration must have been performed before the promise
C. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Explanation: Courts do not evaluate fairness — as long as something of legal value is exchanged, it counts.
Dan agrees to sell his laptop to Emma next week and Emma agrees to pay on delivery. What kind of consideration is this?
A. Executed
B. Past
C. Gratuitous
D. Executory
D. Executory
Explanation: Both parties have promised to act in the future — this is executory consideration.
Carl offers £500 for information leading to the return of his lost dog. Lana finds and returns the dog, unaware of the offer. What is the likely outcome?
A. She can claim the money because she performed the act
B. She cannot claim the reward because she didn’t know about the offer
C. She accepted by implication
D. She can claim partial payment
B. She cannot claim the reward because she didn’t know about the offer
Explanation: Acceptance requires knowledge of the offer. No knowledge = no acceptance = no contract.
Sam paints his neighbour’s fence as a favour. The neighbour later promises to pay him £100. Is this enforceable?
A. Yes, because the work had value
B. No, because consideration was past
C. Yes, because it was morally right
D. No, because the act was executed
B. No, because consideration was past
Explanation: The promise came after the service. Past consideration does not count unless it fits the exception.
Which situation fits the exception to the past consideration rule from Pao On v Lau Yiu Long?
A. A gift given before any request
B. A service performed at the promisor’s request with implied understanding of payment
C. An unsolicited act done out of kindness
D. A vague agreement with no set terms
B. A service performed at the promisor’s request with implied understanding of payment
Explanation: Valid exception to the past consideration rule — key factors include request, implied promise, and enforceability.
In which case did the court rule that even chocolate wrappers were part of consideration?
A. Thomas v Thomas
B. Chappell & Co v Nestlé
C. Tweddle v Atkinson
D. Eastwood v Kenyon
B. Chappell & Co v Nestlé
Explanation: The court recognised the wrappers as valid consideration — even if thrown away later.
In which situation would the rule “consideration must move from the promisee” be most relevant?
A. A person sues for breach of contract they did not contribute to
B. A party accepts a late payment
C. A gift is returned voluntarily
D. A contract is signed without payment
A. A person sues for breach of contract they did not contribute to
Explanation: Only a party who provides consideration can enforce the contract (Tweddle v Atkinson).
Julie pays £1 per year to live in a house left to her by her husband’s estate. What does this illustrate?
A. Sufficient consideration
B. Past consideration
C. Inadequate consideration
D. Implied consideration
A. Sufficient consideration
Explanation: Even small obligations like £1 are legally sufficient (Thomas v Thomas). Courts do not assess adequacy.
Ravi accidentally fixes a stranger’s car. The owner later promises to pay £50. Is the promise binding?
A. Yes, because the service had value
B. No, because the owner was unaware
C. No, because the consideration was past
D. Yes, because consideration need not be adequate
C. No, because the consideration was past
Explanation: Ravi fixed the car without a request or expectation. The later promise is unenforceable.
