Consideration main cases

Question 1

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 1

detriment to plaintiff or benefit to the defendant

Question 2

Curie v Misra (things that count as consideration)

Answer 2

rights, interests, profits, or detriment, loss or responsibility suffered by the other

Question 3

Dunlop v Selfridge

Answer 3

forbearance

Question 4

Ward v Byham

Answer 4

consideration must be above and beyond natural duty

Question 5

Whitte v Bluett

Answer 5

Son had no right to complain anyway - not complaining is not consideration; it is an entirely intangible benefit

Question 6

Chappell v Nestle

Answer 6

“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”

Question 7

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Eastwood v Kenyon

Answer 8

consideration must not be past

Question 9

Lampaleigh v Braithwaite

Answer 9

EXCEPTION: unless there was an implied promise of payment in the past consideration

Question 10

Tweede v Atkinson

Answer 10

consideration must move from promisee

Question 11

Collins v Godfrey

Answer 11

giving evidence is mandatory anyway

• existing public duties are not good consideration

Question 12

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC

Answer 12

EXCEPTION: went beyond existing duty so it is good consideration

Question 13

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 13

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)

Question 14

Hartley v Posonby

Answer 14

like Stilk, but 19/36 remaining - decided it IS consideration

(is it distinguishable because no worry of economic duress?)

Question 15

Shadwell v Shadwell

Answer 15

already a contract to be married and was bound so no new considerataion

Question 16

Williams v Roffrey Bros

Answer 16

practical benefit is good consideration?

CONTRAVERSIAL (but again, no economic duress so consistent with Stilk?)

Question 17

Pinnel’s Case

Answer 17

part payment is not good consideration for the full amount owed

Question 18

DC Builder’s v Rees

Answer 18

applied Pinnel’s Case - exceptions though:

• promisee offers part payment earlier
• offers at a different place
• by another type of chattel

Question 19

Foakes v Beer affirmed Pinnel’s Case

Answer 19

protects creditor that way

• This was a HL case so remains precedent
• it is consistent with the past consideration rule