Consideration

Question 1

Definition of consideration

Answer 1

Both parties bring something of value

Question 2

Types of consideration
Present
Future
Past

Answer 2

Present - consideration maybe executed (delivering a car as part of sale contract)
Future - Executory, a promise in return for a promise (promise to deliver goods in 7 days)
Past - But not the past, past consideration is not valid (doing work before agreement as at time of agreement you are not bringing anything of value). EXCEPT for when implied promise to pay (taxi, restaurant)

Question 3

Sufficiency of consideration

Answer 3

Sufficient if it has some value, does not have to form part of a fair deal (£1 annual rent, it is of value but does not need to be fair) - performance of existing obligations is not sufficient consideration.

Question 4

Consideration cases 
Chappell v Nestle 
Thomas v Thomas 
Collins v Godefroy 
Stilk v Myrick

Answer 4

Chappell v Nestle - chocolate wrappers being sufficient consideration in return for a record

Thomas v Thomas - £1 rent for family home

Collins v Godefroy - C subpoenaed in defense of G. G promised to pay C if appeared in court. G did not need to pay C as C was required to appear

Stilk v Myrick - 2 crew members deserted, remaining crew promised wages of deserters if they sailed short handed. Promise could not be enforced as the crew did no more than existing contract

Question 5

Consideration cases pt 2 
Hartley v Ponsonby 
Foakes v Beer
Central London property trust v High trees house
D and C Builders v Rees

Answer 5

Hartley v Ponsonby - 17 out of 36 crew deserted. Crew entitled to promise as significant increase in difficulty of voyage

Fokes v Beer - B entitled to full payment of debt and was able to petition for statutory interest

Central London property trust v High trees house - C let high-rise flats to H, during war they cut rent. C sued for rent of the last quarters of the year post end of war, successful but only for post war not during when agreed fees

D and C Builders v Rees - R owed D money, R knew D was in financial trubles so suggested paying less than total debt as full settlement, D agreed out of desperation. D is entitled to claim the balance as R cannot use promissory estoppel as a tactic to pay less through distress