Consideration Flashcards
Currie v Misa
consideration is “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing by one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other”
White v Bluett 1853
offer to stop nagging father if he paid off sons debts was not valid consideration as it had no economic value
Chappell & Co v Nestle Ltd 1960
“a contracting party can stipulate what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn”
Midland Bank v Green 1981
farmer sold his home to his wife for £500 to escape repossession - valid as it did not need to be adequate
Re McArdle 1951
not valid consideration to pay for decoration work as it was completed in the past
Lampleigh v Braithwaite 1615
not past consideration as there was an implied promise of pay for the kings pardon
Collins v Godefroy 1831
obligation to act as a witness in court was not more than an existing duty
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club 1988
extension of public duty to be present at a gathering by police
Stilk v Myrick 1809
doing the work of 2 deserters was not above & beyond so were paid standard wages
Hartley v Ponsonby 1857
each sailor taking on the work of 2 men was above & beyond so had to be paid the promised wage
D&C Builders v Rees 1965
economic duress ruins the validity of a contract
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House 1947
can’t go back on a promise (promissory estoppel)
Tweddle v Atkinson 1861
could not claim for agreement to give money to husband & wife by father & father in law after death as he was not party to the contract
Williams v Roffey Bros
shows judicial flexibility to rule of existing duties as it saved time and money for them to continue without breach
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd 1951
no claim for tyres being sold at lower price than agreed as Dunlop were not party to the contract between Selfridges and Dew & Co
Scruttons v Midland Silicones 1992
no claim for full amount of damage because Scruttons did not have a contract with Midland Silicones
Beswick v Beswick 1968
was not able to claim for the money her nephew agreed to pay to her after the husbands death in exchange for the business but she was able to claim on behalf of her husband
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd 1975
able to claim for disappointment of him & family for holiday going against rule of privity
Tulk v Moxhay 1848
able to get an injunction to stop building on land due to restrictive covenant
