Consideration

Question 1

Currie v Misa definition of Consideration:

Answer 1

Some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given or undertaken by another.

Question 2

Dunlop v Selfridge definition of Consideration:

Answer 2

The price for which the promise of the other (party) is bought.

Question 3

3 Rules of Consideration:

Answer 3

• Must move from the promisee.
• Must not be past.
• Must be sufficient but need not be adequate.

Question 4

Consideration must not be past:

Answer 4

A benefit given in the past is not consideration for a present promise,

Relevant Case: Re McArdle

Question 5

Criteria for exception to the rule that consideration must not be past:

Answer 5

• Act must be done at promisor’s request.
• Both parties acknowledge that the act would be remunerated by payment or other benefit.
• Payment must be legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.

Question 6

Case that contradicts the rule that consideration must not be past:

Answer 6

Lampliegh v Braithwaite

Question 7

Consideration must move from the promisee:

Answer 7

Third parties are prohibited from suing for the carrying out of promises made by the parties to the contract.

Tweddle v Atkinson

Question 8

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate:

Answer 8

As long as consideration has some value, the courts will not concern themselves with adequacy.

Thomas v Thomas

Question 9

What about the performance of an existing duty?

Answer 9

Renders consideration insufficient.

Question 10

Consideration must be:

Answer 10

Real
Tangible
Valuable

White v Bluett

Question 11

Executory Consideration:

Answer 11

Promises are exchanged for future acts

Question 12

Executed Consideration:

Answer 12

An act is performed to fulfill a promise to another

Question 13

Promisee:

Answer 13

Person to whom the promise is made.

Question 14

Promisor:

Answer 14

Person to who is making the promise.

Question 15

What is the equitable remedy of Promissory Estoppel?

Answer 15

Essentially stops parties from attempting to not enforce their contractual duties. It is a shield not a sword.

Central London Property v High Trees House Ltd

Question 16

Lampliegh v Braithwaite

Answer 16

The defendant had killed a man and was due to be hung for murder. He promised another £100 in exchange for securing a pardon.

It was held:

Even though it would constitute past consideration, it was preceded by a request from the defendant, making it valid.

Question 17

White v Bluett

Answer 17

Promising not to complain is not consideration and ultimately intangible.

Question 18

Re McArdle

Answer 18

McArdle carried out various repairs on a house. After she completed the work, her siblings promised to pay her but never did.

It was held:

Promise to make payment was invalid as it came after the consideration had been performed.

Question 19

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 19

After he died, Mr Thomas gave his wife the house for £1 per year.

It was held:

The £1 rent was good consideration. Even though it was not economically adequate, it was sufficient.

Question 20

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 20

Father of bride and Father of the groom agreed to pay couple a sum of money. Both died before that could happen. The groom made a claim.

It was held:

Groom could not make a claim as he was not party to the arrangement.