Consideration Part 1 Flashcards
Lampleigh v Brathwait
Brathwait. Who killed a man, asked Lampleigh to attend upon the king in royston and procure a pardon. Lamplight successfully did so, and Brathwait promised £100 for his services.
Chappell v Nestle: Facts
nestle, advertised it would supply a record of ‘rockin shoes’ to anyone who sent in 1s 6d together with three wrappers from Nestle chocolates. Chappell sought an injunction on the basis that 1st 6d was below normal retail price. Chappell argued that 3 wrappers must also be part of consideration has they had been of economic value to Nestle.”
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long- consideration includes promise to perform already existing contractual duty
-As part of complex deal involving transfer of shares from fedendants to the plaintiffs, the former agreed to buy some back at a state value in order to reduce latter’ spending market exposure. Once plaintiffs realized that this undertaking left them vulnerable to giving up the shares at the same value even if they had risen in value on the open market, or dropped considerably, they asked for a guarantee that defendants would either let them profit in the former case, or take the hit themselves in the latter. Defendants issued guarantee but later resiled on the basis that no consideration.
Name the two ‘problem cases.’
White v Bluett; Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
Professor Atiyah
“Consideration: A Restatement” in Essays in Contract 1968
- the courts never set out to create a doctrine of course skderstion. They have been concerned with the much more practical problem of deciding in the course if litigation whether a particular case should be enforced.
- when courts used the word consideration, they meant nothing more is there a “good” reason for giving force to the promise.
- argues that recourse to doctrine es if ‘intention to create legal relations’ and ‘ duress’ are in fact ancillary mechanisms through which judges escape having to apply an overly technical understanding of consideration. It allows them to return to not=otion that consideration k]will only be found when there is good reason to enforce a promise.
What did Lord Wilberforce say in Stevedores?
Argued that as a commercial context encompassed the relations between all three parties, you had to adopt expansive view and sell all parties as the ‘makers of bargains.’ None were in business if giving gratuitous promises. Their u dertaking towards each other should be read in this manner.
Consideration involving legal claims: Bad faith. Case, facts, ratio
Wade v Simeon, plaintiff had claimed two sums of money from defendant, totaling £10,000 in exchange for promise not to bring legal action. Held that since plaintiff knew claim was ungrounded, he acted in bad faith and thus no consideration.
Scotsman v Pegg
Plaintiffs contracted with third-party to deliver coal to their named destination. Destination named was to the defendant. Plaintiff said to defendants: we promise to perform our contractual duty to the third party (I.e. Give you the coal), if you promise to unload at a certain. Rate. When defendants failed, plaintiffs sued. Plaintiffs succeeded.
Chocolate wrappers case. Name, ration and judges
Chappell v Nestle, a contracting part can stipulate as consideration as what he chooses.
Lord Reid” Whole point of Rockin Shoes was to induce people to buy more of Nestle’s chocolate - so wrappers are consideration of the indirect advertisement money
Lord Somerville- even a peppercorn can be considered sideration
The Eurymedon
Bill of landing between cinsignir and carrier if Gilles had an exclusion clause for liability for damage to goods for carrier’s agents or servants unless action was brought within one year. Carrier’s subcontracted stevedores to unload goods. Stevedores damaged. Consignkr brought claim arguing that stevedores had provided no consideration for the promise in the exclusion cause not to bring action. They failed. Stevedores protected.
Patterson J: law gives no regard to the adequacy of consideration. But consideration means something which is of value “in the eyes of the law”
Case involving cottage
Thomas v Thomas- consideration must be able to be objectively ascertained, improved feelings sentiments unlikely to pass.
Who suggests Economic Value is required for consideration?
Treitel
Why did House of Lords side with solicitor’s in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd? Lord GOFF
1) obtaining of chips and gambling with them a sing,e transaction which was void. by reason of S.18 of the Gaming Act 1845
2) chips could not be regarded as considerstion. Obvious, goes against Chappell v Nestle.
- contract for gaming S are void, even if gambling itself isn’t. So dishonest solicitor had no right to claim legal right to money if he won.
- David Herling asks? Why is it not valuable consideration to gain the opportunity to gamble, and the chance of winning very large amounts of money as a result? True that gambling contracts were void pursuant to legislation, but gambling itself was not, Policy-motivated.
Consideration in compromise of legal claims: Cook v Wright- facts and ratio
Claim was made against defendant for contribution to works carried out under a local property improvement Act. Unbeknownst to the person bringing the claim (Cook), it was a mistaken one as the individual targeted (Wright) was not in fact an owner of the home in the area. Cook asked for money in return for not to sue. Wright agreed to pay in three installments. Failed to pay 3rd
Wright could not defend the proceedings for breach if contract on basis that there was a lack of consideration. Even though the claim brought against him was mistaken, adequacy if consideration could only be determined by the court.
Ward v Byham
- father pays mother maintenance for child, even though child is illegitimate meaning, technically, under S.52 off the National Assistance Act 1948 it is entirely the responsibility of the mother to care for her. But father still has to pay because he receives additional promise t]from mother that child “will be happy and bale to choose who she lives with.”
- Denning LJ seems to relapse to view of a promise as itself binding as a question of honour and integrity. This had been the eighteenth-century view of Lord Mansfield in Hawkes v Saunders.
