Consideration Flashcards
Currie v Misa definition of Consideration:
Some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given or undertaken by another.
Dunlop v Selfridge definition of Consideration:
The price for which the promise of the other (party) is bought.
3 Rules of Consideration:
- Must move from the promisee.
- Must not be past.
- Must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
Consideration must not be past:
A benefit given in the past is not consideration for a present promise,
Relevant Case: Re McArdle
Criteria for exception to the rule that consideration must not be past:
- 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.
Case that contradicts the rule that consideration must not be past:
Lampliegh v Braithwaite
Consideration must move from the promisee:
Third parties are prohibited from suing for the carrying out of promises made by the parties to the contract.
Tweddle v Atkinson
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate:
As long as consideration has some value, the courts will not concern themselves with adequacy.
Thomas v Thomas
What about the performance of an existing duty?
Renders consideration insufficient.
Consideration must be:
Real
Tangible
Valuable
White v Bluett
Executory Consideration:
Promises are exchanged for future acts
Executed Consideration:
An act is performed to fulfill a promise to another
Promisee:
Person to whom the promise is made.
Promisor:
Person to who is making the promise.
What is the equitable remedy of Promissory Estoppel?
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
Lampliegh v Braithwaite
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.
White v Bluett
Promising not to complain is not consideration and ultimately intangible.
Re McArdle
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.
Thomas v Thomas
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.
Tweddle v Atkinson
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.
