Consideration main cases Flashcards
Thomas v Thomas
detriment to plaintiff or benefit to the defendant
Curie v Misra (things that count as consideration)
rights, interests, profits, or detriment, loss or responsibility suffered by the other
Dunlop v Selfridge
forbearance
Ward v Byham
consideration must be above and beyond natural duty
Whitte v Bluett
Son had no right to complain anyway - not complaining is not consideration; it is an entirely intangible benefit
Chappell v Nestle
“a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like peppercorn and will throw it away”
Thomas v Thomas
motive is not the same as consideration and must have value in the eyes of the law (if there is already a “Good reason” for the promise then it is not consideration)
husband died - dying wish was for wife to have house or £100
brother carried out intentions (plaintiff)
wife paid £1 a week for repairs etc.,
he claimed no consideration - but ground rent was not a mere proviso but an express agreement
Eastwood v Kenyon
consideration must not be past
Lampaleigh v Braithwaite
EXCEPTION: unless there was an implied promise of payment in the past consideration
Tweede v Atkinson
consideration must move from promisee
Collins v Godfrey
giving evidence is mandatory anyway
- existing public duties are not good consideration
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
EXCEPTION: went beyond existing duty so it is good consideration
Stilk v Myrick
desertions are a normal contingence so not more work - just existing duty = no consideration
(lots of focus on economic duress which was a doctrine that did not exist at the time so could not use it - relied on consideration instead)
Hartley v Posonby
like Stilk, but 19/36 remaining - decided it IS consideration
(is it distinguishable because no worry of economic duress?)
Shadwell v Shadwell
already a contract to be married and was bound so no new considerataion
Williams v Roffrey Bros
practical benefit is good consideration?
CONTRAVERSIAL (but again, no economic duress so consistent with Stilk?)
Pinnel’s Case
part payment is not good consideration for the full amount owed
DC Builder’s v Rees
applied Pinnel’s Case - exceptions though:
- promisee offers part payment earlier
- offers at a different place
- by another type of chattel
Foakes v Beer affirmed Pinnel’s Case
protects creditor that way
- This was a HL case so remains precedent
- it is consistent with the past consideration rule
