Consideration & Estoppel Flashcards
Elements to establish for Defendant to rely on promissory estoppel
- a clear and unequivocal promise that causes 2. a change of position by the promisee in reliance on the promise 3. It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise 4. use the doctrine as “a shield but not a sword.”
Currie v Misa
“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.”
Eastwood v Kenyon
Past consideration. Performance (action) already occurred before the agreement.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Past consideration can still be good if the following criteria are met (Lord Scarman) :
Tweddle v Atkinson
consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon it.
What is not a good consideration
- obligation imposed by law 2. obligation owed to a third party 3. contractual duty
Requirement for consideration
- must move from promisee to the promisor 2. Need not be sufficient but adequate 3. Not be past consideration
Chappell & Co v Nestle
Need not be sufficient but adequate. Chocolate wrapper is adequate for consideration. - Lord Reid: direct benefit to the Nestle; Lord Somerville: even if the party will throw away a pepper corn, that does not cease a peppercorn to be a good consideration.
Collins v Godefrey
Performance of an existing obligation is not good consideration. Merely complying his legal duty is not a good consideraton.
Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v Glamorgan Country Council
If police goes beyond their statutory duty, they should get paid for that promise. - - As a society, we would not want police to do work with some extra payment from people.
- Good and bad promise is considered by the court. No consideration.
Ward v Byham
going over and above her existing duty by undertaking to keep the child happy and the father gets benefits of that too.
Scotson v Pegg
Promising to do something that you are already obliged to do through a contract with a third party is still a good consideration, as the person to whom you make the promise gains a direct right ot sue you if you fail to fulfil the promise.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
a pre-existing contractual obligation to a third party can be valid consideration, as long as the promise is not induced by duress.
Stilk v Myrick
Promise to pay more: Sailors were not entitled to additional payment because they have been employed to cover that amount of work and they are merely complying with their existing contractual duty so they offer no more consideration for more variation of the promise.
Hartley v Ponsonby
Sailors going above and beyond their existing contractual duty is a good consideration.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls
Exception to Stilk v Myrick; (i) Practical benefit (or prevents a disbenefit) (ii) not by duress: decorating a flat and offering extra fee for finishing on time.
Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive Ltd
Promise given as a result of economic duress - not a valid consideration.
Foakes v Beer
General rule: Promises to accept less: Part payment is not a good consideration. - Paying back money in instalments is not consideration.
Welby v Drake
Part payment of a third party is a good consideration.
High Tree case
Promissory estoppel; A promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a large sum, if acted upon is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration.
Thomas v Thomas
‘Consideration means something which is of some value in the eye of the law, moving from the plaintiff; it may be some detriment to the plaintiff or some benefit to the defendant, but at all events it must be moving from the plaintiff.’
Dunlop v Selfridge
‘An act or forbearance of the 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.’
White v Bluett
Consideration must be something of value. Stopping complaining is not a consideration.
The Atlantic Baron
Currency devaluation. The purchasers agreed to pay 10% more to maintain amicable relations; Keeping up amicable relation is not enough to be consideration.
Shadwell v Shadwell
That same promise to marry someone else can be a consideration in a different contract at the same time as well. (Never bring your partner to work! LOL)
Re Selectmove
- 1/3 of the debt is asked to pay and promised to let the remaining amount off the hook. But still went after the remaining amount.
- Part-payment of a debt is not enough for consideration.
McClaine v Gatty
1) Estoppel by Representation ;
‘Where A has
o By his words or conduct
o Justified B in believing that a certain state of facts exists, and
o B has acted upon such belief to his prejudice,
A is not permitted to affirm against B that a different state of facts existed […]’
combe v Combe
- After their divorce Mr Combe promised Mrs Combe 100 pa. In the end he refused to pay. She did not go to the divorce courts. After 6 years, Mrs Combe brought an action for all the remaining money.
- There is no pre-existing legal relation. No estoppel.
Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v M&S plc [2001]
- Baird Textile has been a supplier for M&S for a long time. Later M&S does not want it anymore.
- Baird Textile claimed estoppel of they thought they would be life-long supplier.
- The court decided such promise needs consideration and there is no estoppel.
