Consideration cases Flashcards

1
Q
  • plaintiff bought a horse from the defendant for £30
  • defendant warranted that the horse was healthy after the sale
  • proved to be a lie, plaintiff sued for breach of contract
  • Court held that:
    • Warranty was unenforceable - not supported by any consideration
    • Warranty was subsequent to the purchase of horse and independent of it
A

Roscorla v. Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q
  • Woman carried out work to a house jointly owned by members of her family (renovation)
  • After the work had been completed her relatives signed a document promising to pay her for the work
  • Then her family refused to pay, so she sued them
  • Court held: promise was made after the consideration was provided, not legally enforceable
A

Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  • A father promised to discharge his son from debt due if the son promised not to complain.
  • This was not supported by consideration because refraining from making complaints is of no economic value.
A

White v. Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex. 36

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  • builder promised to work in exchange for prayers
  • prayers not considered a sufficient considerations
A

O’Neill v. Murphy [1936] NI 16

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  • plaintiff who was a deeply religious minor sought a share of the defendant’s $2.8 million lottery win
  • plaintiff purchased the lottery ticket with defendant´s money - promise that if he would pray to Saint Eleggua to cause the lottery numbers to win, they would split the win
  • Court held:
    • could not show that his prayers were effective
    • the saint caused the numbers to win
      • emphasized that the contract was not that the numbers would win but that the saint would make the numbers win
A

Pando v. Fernandez (1984) 127 Misc 2d 224

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  • defendant offered a record to the public for sale for 7 pence plus three chocolate bar wrappers
  • plaintiff owned the copyright in this record and claimed he was not paid sufficient royalties- only paid a % from the 7 pence but not the wrappers- wanted them to be included as part of the consideration
  • Court held:
    • wrappers part of the consideration
    • intrinsic value to the company - the wrappers were important to the company as they induced ppl bought chocolate they otherwise may have not bought
A

Chappell v. Nestle [1960] AC 87

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  • a father purported to sell a pub to his two sons for £16,000
  • Court realised that this consideration was not paid and was never intended to be paid
  • sham transaction entered in order to avoid estate duty tax
  • there was therefore no consideration and the transaction was treated as a gift - gift tax applied
A

Revenue Commissioners v. Moroney [1972] IR 372

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

uncle offered to pay his nephew 5 000 dollars if he did not drink, smoke and gamble while studying at university - forbearance is sufficient consideration despite it not directly benefiting the offeror

A

Hamer v. Sidway (1891) 124 NY 538

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  • plaintiff was subpoenaed (ordered to go and give evidence at the court) to give evidence at the trial of the defendant
  • plaintiff promised the defendant a 6-guinea attendance fee
  • plaintiff was not allowed to enforce this promise as he had not provided consideration because he was under a legal duty to attend court
A

Collins v. Godefroy (1831) 1 B& D 950

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Welsh police asked to guard a mine during a strike - police said they would check up on it- mine owners insisted on special protection and to pay extra money for that - then retracted and said police was obliged to do so - House of Lords held that it was service above the reasonably appropriate police care

A

Glasbrook v. Glamorgan [1925] AC 27

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  • payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater was no satisfaction of the whole
  • applies to a liquidated debt (a debt which is ascertained as to amount and undisputed as to existence
  • designed to protect a creditor against a debtor who attempts to use the creditor’s financial weakness for his own purposes
A

Pinnel’s case (1602) 5 Co. Rep 117a

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q
  • the plaintiff did some building works for the defendant and was owed £482 pounds by him
  • plaintiffs were in dire financial straits and pressed for payment for 6 months without success
  • defendant’s wife, knowing of their money problems, offered them £300 in full settlement stating that if they did not accept that they would get nothing
  • plaintiffs reluctantly agreed but once they got the £300 pounds they sued for the rest
  • Appeal allowed based on Pinnel´s rule
A

D and C Builders v. Rees [1965] 3 All ER 837

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

owed 2 090 plus interest - have an agreement to pay 500 now and rest in instalments- no consideration in the second agreement - obliged to pay the interest

A

Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 AC 605

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

gave up her job in the US to study in England

A

Jones v Padavatton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly