Consideration

Question 1

Chappel v Nestle [1960]

Answer 1

Consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient

Question 2

White v Bluett [1853]

Answer 2

Not doing someting does not usually amount to consideration

Question 3

Ruscorla v Thomas

Answer 3

Past consideration is not good consideration

Question 4

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615)

Answer 4

Past consideration can be good consideration as long as 3 conditions are satisfied, one of which that the act was done at the promisor’s request

Question 5

Re Casey’s Patients

Answer 5

Past consideration can be good consideration as long as 3 conditions are satisfied, one of which is that the parties understood from the outset that the act was to be rewarded in some way

Question 6

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Answer 6

Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the other party will not be sufficient consideration in exchange for promise from other party for more money

Question 7

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

Answer 7

Exceeding contractual obligations will amount to consideration (question of policy and degree)

Question 8

Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]

Answer 8

In cases where the defendant has received a practical or commercial benefit and where there is no evidence of duress or fraud, performance of commercial duties may amount to sufficient consideration

Question 9

Foakes v Beer (1884)

Answer 9

Part Payment of a debt is not usually consideration for a promise by creditor to forgo the balance due

Question 10

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

Answer 10

Part payment of a debt is not usually consideration for a promise by creditor to forgo the balance dye except where it can be shown that something differed was offered to the creditor which they accepted

Question 11

Central Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]

Answer 11

Promissory Estoppel - Where a party to a contract has, by words or conduct, made a promise to the other to forgo a legal right, then once the other party has acted on it he will have a good defence to any claim brought by the promisor

Question 12

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877)

Answer 12

Promissory Estoppel - The promise to waive a legal right may be implied

Question 13

WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr [1972]

Answer 13

Promissory Estoppel - Promise must act on a promise - does not mean it has to be a detriment, all requires is an alterationo f action

Question 14

Emmanuel Ejayi v R T Briscoe

Answer 14

The promise only becomes final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position; otherwise the promisor can resile from his promise on giving reasonable notice

Question 15

Combe v Combe [1951]

Answer 15

Promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield not a sword

Question 16

D & C Builders v Rees [1966]

Answer 16

For promissory estoppel to apply it must be unjust and inequitable for promisor to go back and insist on his full legal rights; if it is not unjust then promissory estoppel will not apply

Question 17

Pollock - Define Consideration

Answer 17

The Price one Pays for another’s Promise