Consideration Flashcards
Consideration must be of some value
Thomas v Thomas
Value of consideration does not have to be financial
Chappell and Co v Nestle Co
If it is believed that claim has merit and is dropped, then it is valid consideration
Cook v Wright
If claim is known to be worthless and dropped, it is not valid consideration
Wade v Simeon
No consideration if no intention to create legal relations
White v Bluett
Consideration must be requested
Combe v Combe
Request for consideration can be inferred by the court (marriage)
Shadwell v Shadwell
If promisee does not give anything in return, then it is gift
Dickinson v Abel
Consideration must not be past
Roscorla v Thomas, Eastwood v Kenyon
Exception of implied assumpsit, if there is understanding that act would be remunerated
Lampleigh v Braithwait
Implied assumpsit: 1. Act must be done at promisor’s request; 2. parties must have understood that act was to be remunerated; 3. payment or conferment of benefit must be legally enforceable
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Preforming an existing legal duty is not valid consideration
Collins v Godefroy
Going above legal duty can be good consideration
Glasbrook Bros v Glanmorgan CC
Contractual duties owed by third party can be consideration for a contract
The Eurymedon
Variation Agreement to do same for more not consideration
Stilk v Myrick
Variation Agreement to do more for more valid consideration
Hartley v Ponsonby
Variation to do same for more can be consideration if practical benefit is obtained
Williams v Roffey Bros
Variation agreements to do same for less not good consideration
Pinnel’s Case, Foakes v Beer, Re Selectmove
Part payment in different location can be good consideration for variation agreement
Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties
Part payment made by someone other than debtor can be good consideration for variation agreement
Hirachand Punamchand v Temple
Payment of debt in alternate form can be good consideration
Pinnel’s Case (but not cheque - D and C Builders Ltd v Reeves)
Variation agreement to accept same for less may be good consideration if practical benefit
MWB v Rock Advertising (But conflicting authorities of UKSC and UKCA)
Promissory estoppel cannot be cause of action
Combe v Combe
Promise not to enforce legal rights must be clear and unequivocal
Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce Marketing, Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Promissory estoppel suspends right of promisor to enforce their position
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co.
Must be reliance on promise
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Reliance need not be detrimental
Alan v El Nasar, Central London Property Trust v High Trees
Reliance can be interpreted broadly (part-payment of debt)
Collier v P and M J Wright
Must be inequitable for promisor to resile from promise
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway, Central London Property Trust v High Trees
For it to be inequitable, no need to show detriment
The Post Chaser
Estoppel in part-payment of debt: 1. debtor offers part-payment, 2. creditor accepts the offer, 3. debtor acts on promise of creditor to accept part payment, 4. it is inequitable for creditor to resile from promise
Collier v Wright, per Arden J
