Consideration Flashcards
What definition is given by Pollock for consideration?
namely that, ‘an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.’
what is leading case on consideration?
Pollock’s definition was adopted by the House of Lords in Dunlop v Selfridge [1915]
What is executory consideration?
. Executory consideration is where contracting parties make promises to each other to perform something in the future after the contract has been formed.
can a mere promise be consideration?
a mere promise can be consideration without the need for anything tangible to be transferred to the other party.
name 4 rules governing consideration?
Consideration must not be past -
-Lord Scarman gives exceptions to rule - Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]
Consideration must move from the promisee - Consideration need not be adequate -
Consideration must be sufficient -
What 2 cases show Consideration must not be past ?
What were the basic facts?
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840), Roscorla v Thomas (1842)
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)
1 a father died leaving his daughter, in the care of a guardian, Eastwood. When she came of age, Sarah married Kenyon, who then promisedhe would pay off Eastwood for bringing up Sarah. Kenyon failed to honour his promise.
HELD: not good consideration
Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234. Roscorla bought Thomas’s horse for £30. Subsequently, Thomas promised Roscorla that the horse was sound and free from vice. The horse proved to be vicious.
HELD: there was no consideration. sale was completed completed prior to the promise being given.
Are there exceptions to the rule that consideration cannot be past?
What are they? And name the case they are derived from!
Lord Scarman gives exceptions to rule - Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]
1? The act must be done at the promisors request - Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615)
2. The parties must have understood that the act was to be rewarded either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit. -
3. The payment, or conferment of other benefits, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.
Name 2 cases that show that consideration must move from the promisee.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v Selfridge & Co. (1915),
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) The case concerned an agreement reached between two fathers of a couple who were about to get married. They agreed to settle a sum on the groom. The groom sought to enforce his father-in-law’s promise, but it was held that he could not as he had provided no consideration for the promise.
What case shows consideration need not be adequate?
what were the basic facts?
Chappell & Co. v Nestle Co. Ltd
The Nestle company offered gramophone records of claimants tune to the public for a smallsum and three chocolate bar wrappers. the question arose as to whether the wrappers were part of the consideration given for each record. HELD by the House of Lords: the wrappers were part of the Consideration
. 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. As the whole object of selling the record was to increase the sales of chocolate it seems to me wrong not to treat the stipulated evidence of such sales as part of the consideration.’
What case shows Consideration must be sufficient? name an American case that is similar, but dealt with differently.
- White v Bluett (1853_ - son owed Dad money. Dad said he wouldnrt have to pay it back if he stopped moaning about howhe divided his inheritance.
Held - not moaning wasn’t good consideration.
Hamer v Sidway - boy agreed with uncle to stop drinking and gambling until 21 for 5000 dollars. He did. Uncle died. Boy sued estate . Held - good consideration as refraining from legal pleasurable activity
What is the precedent from Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd [1976] ?
Where an individual promises to resist a course of action which he never intended to pursue, no consideration will stem from the promise to forbear:
When will an existing obligation be good consideration?
When the party has done more than he was bound to do under the existing contract there might be fresh consideration. If he has only done what he was meant to do under the existing contract there will be no fresh consideration
What happened in Stilk v Myrick (1809?
the captain of a ship promised his crew that, if they shared between them the work of two seamen who had deserted, the wages of the deserters would be shared out between them. The court held that the promise was notbinding because the seamen gave no consideration: they were already contractually bound to do any extra work to complete the voyage.
what is the case that defines good consideration when a previous obligation exists?
Stilk v Myrick (1809
the captain of a ship promised his crew that, if they shared between them the work of two seamen who had deserted, the wages of the deserters would be shared out between them. The court held that the promise was notbinding because the seamen gave no consideration: they were already contractually bound to do any extra work to complete the voyage.
What happened in Hartley v Ponsonby (1857?
There had been many desertions, leaving the ship’s crew seriously depleted. The captain promised the remaining crew members £40 extra pay if they would complete the voyage.
HELD: the promise was binding. It was dangerous to put to sea a ship so undermanned. The seamen were not obliged to do this under their contracts of service and were, therefore, free to vary their contract, which would include the extra remuneration, for the remaining part of the voyage
