Consideration/Estoppel

Question 1

What is good consideration?

Answer 1

• Has to be sufficient
• Must have economic value
• Must move from the promisee

Question 2

What is a criticism of consideration?

Answer 2

‘Consideration means no more than a ‘reason’ for the promise to be enforced’ ATIYAH

Question 3

Is past consideration good consideration? Name a case that concerns this

Answer 3

Past consideration is not good. RE Caseys Patents (1892) - could enforce past consideration as it was at promises request

Question 4

Give case examples on the sufficiency of consideration.

Answer 4

• Thomas v Thomas: maintained property and paid £1 rent
• White v Bluett: not enforcing debt if stopped complaining not good consideration
• Chappell & Co v Nestle: sweet wrappers are consideration bc money/effort

Question 5

Give two examples of part consideration - “payment of a less sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater cannot be satisfaction for the whole”

Answer 5

• Foakes v Beer (1804) no new consideration

- Stilk v Myrick (1809) ‘for want of consideration’

Question 6

Explain a practical benefit with use of a case.

Answer 6

Williams v Roffey Bros + Nicholls [1990] Additional promise of £10,300 could be enforced because ‘obtains in practice a benefit’

Question 7

What can the doctrine of practical benefit not stretch to?

Answer 7

RE Selectmove (1995): tax arrears, does NOT cover Foakes v Beer cases

Question 8

Define promissory estoppel

Answer 8

If A has made a promise, and B has acted in reliance of that promise, then it is binding

Question 9

What happened in the High Trees case?

Answer 9

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House [1947]: rent for flat halves to £1250, was estopped from going back because of promise reliance.
*BUT PART PAYMENT NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION

Question 10

Name an issue with promissory estoppel using a case.

Answer 10

Combe v Combe: husband promised to pay separated wife. Couldn’t use promissory estoppel as “it is important that it shouldn’t be stretched too far lest it be endangered”

Question 11

What is valuable consideration according to Currie v Misa?

Answer 11

• Right / interest / profit

- Detriment / loss / responsibility

Question 12

Can proprietary estoppel create a cause of action?

Answer 12

YES - Crabb v Arun District Council
CA decided claimant could continue to use access point
“by words or conduct… will not insist on strict legal rules… equity will be formed”

Question 13

Describe what happened in the Tungsten Electric Co Ltd v Tool Metal MFG Co Ltd case.

Answer 13

• Agreement to compensate 30% if went above 50kg sales
• Waves tariff for war, then tried to reinstate it
• Found rights merely suspended - needed to give notice if re-insisting on rights

Question 14

Where is the consideration/estoppel divide?

Answer 14

• D&C Builders v Rees: £300 instead of £480, NO PART CONSIDERATION
• Barton v Armstrong: clear duress
• Walton Stores v Maher: promissory estoppel could stop WS reneging

Question 15

“Promissory estoppel is…”

Answer 15

“More often cited than applied, and more often applied than understood.”