Consideration Flashcards
Currie v Misa (1875)
A valuable consideration, in the sense of law, may consist of either some benefit to one party or some loss being suffered by the other.
Edmonds v Lawson (2000)
Question of whether or not minimum wage should apply to pupillage, held: objectively it was a contract of employment so minimum wage should apply.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co (1915)
If there is a return on the promise it becomes enforceable.
White v Bluett (1853)
A father lent his som money in return for promissory note, he said he would not enforce the note if the son would stop complaining about his will. Held: the son not complaining was not of economic value.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1979)
An act in the past is not enough to provide consideration for a future promise to pay unless you can prove that there was an implication of renumeration/reward.
Pinnel’s Case (1602)
An agreement for part payment of debt is not legally binding unless the debtor does something different such as giving a gift or paying earlier which would benefit the creditor.
Foakes v Beer (1884)
Creditor accepted payment by instalments, promised to take no action on value of interest if full sum was repaid. This was not legally enforceable since the debtor did nothing extra.
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Sailors were offered extra wages after other sailors deserted, promise to pay extra was not legally binding as the sailors were contractually obliged to do all of the work required of them.
Williams v Roffey Bros (1990)
A subcontractor was offered a bonus to complete his work on time, would mean main contractor would avoid a time penalty clause, this was enough to prove consideration. If the result of a promise to pay more obtained a benefit in practice and the promise was not given due to economic duress or fraud then the benefit can be consideration.
Re Selectmove (1995)
Company requested to pay HMRC in instalments, representative said they’d check with superiors and reply, company received no reply and presumed it was okay. HMRC later demanded full payment. Held: only Foakes v Beer could be applied as it concerned underpayment.
