Consideration

Question 1

Currie v Misa 1875

Answer 1

Consideration is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.

Question 2

Thomas v Thomas 1842

Answer 2

Love and affection does not count but a £1 per year contribution to live in a house owned by another did.

Question 3

Chappell & Co v Nestle (1959)

Answer 3

Offers for free gifts in exchange for coupons may be consideration

Question 4

Roscarla v Thomas (1842)

Answer 4

Sale of horse

If the act given as consideration was done before the contract was agreed it was past consideration and does not count.

Question 5

Lampleigh v Brathwaite 1615

Answer 5

Exceptions to past consideration rule - if the act was done at the promisor’s request.

Question 6

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980

Answer 6

Hol refined exception to past consideration rule and following criteria was produced:

Act must have been done at the promisor’s request
Parties must have understood that the act would be paid by money or some other benefit
Payment of the money or other benefit must have been legally enforceable if it had been promised in advance

Question 7

Leeds United FC Ltd v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2012)

Answer 7

Existing legal obligations are sufficient if the act exceeds the legal requirement.

Contractual duty - Collins v godefroy

Question 8

Stilk v Myrick 1809

Answer 8

Existing contractual duties generally do not amount to sufficient consideration for another contract with the same party

Question 9

Hartley v Ponsonby 1857

Answer 9

Existing contractual duties generally do not amount to sufficient consideration for a contract with the same party unless the contract radically changes

Question 10

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 1990

Answer 10

CoA narrowed scope of stilk v myrick. Where there was a promise of additional payment in the context of an existing contractual duty that promise could be binding providing the promisor obtained some practical benefit or avoided some practical disbenefit from the performance of the existing duty.

Question 11

Scotson v Pegg 1861

Answer 11

Promise of an existing duty owed to a third party is enforceable.

Also shadwell v shadwell 1860 - marriage

Question 12

Pinnel’s Case 1602

Answer 12

At common law you can go back on a promise not to enforce a debt if you agree to take a smaller sum as full payment, unless some new element is introduced at the creditor’s request.

Question 13

Foakes v Beer (1884) and Re Selectmove (1995)

Answer 13

Pinnels case principle applied in F v B (1884)

Re S (1995) confirmed principle was not affected by Williams v roffey

Question 14

Hirachand Punamchand v Temple (1911)

Answer 14

Part payment promise is binding if made by a third party on a promise not to enforce the debt against the original debtor

Question 15

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947)

Answer 15

Promissory estoppel exception to part payment of a debt. If a creditor has promised not to enforce part of a debt and the debtor has acted in reliance on this promise, the creditor cannot then go back on the promise and sue for the whole debt.

Question 16

Combe v Combe (1951)

Answer 16

Lord denning set out the requirements. Promisor has made a promise by words or conduct intended to affect the existing legal relationship with the promisee and to be acted upon by the promisee; the promisee has acted in reliance on the promise; the promisor cannot revert to the original relationship as if they had not made the promise.