Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract Law > Consideration, Promissory Estoppel And Economic Duress > Flashcards

Consideration, Promissory Estoppel And Economic Duress Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What are the rules of consideration?

A
  1. Consideration must not be past
  2. Consideration must move from promisee to promisor
  3. Consideration must be sufficient, but need not be adequate
  4. Performance of an existing obligation is not good consideration
  5. Part payment of a debt is not good consideration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Case authority: Consideration must not be past

A

Eastwood v Kenyon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Case authority: Exception to the general rule that past consideration is not good.

A

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the conditions that must be met for past consideration to be good consideration (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long)

A
  1. Was it at the request of the promisor? (Lampleigh v Braithwait)
  2. Was payment understood to be due? (Re Casey’s Patents)
  3. Would the contract be enforceable apart from this issue?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Case authority: Both parties must provide consideration

A

Tweddle v Atkinson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Authority: 3rd parties can enforce a contract between others benefitting the 3rd party without consideration.

A

S. 1 Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case authority: Consideration must have some value to be sufficient, even if it is far less than the promise is worth.

A

Chappell & Co v Nestle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case authority: Giving up a legal right is sufficient, but promising not to enforce one that you do not have is insufficient (e.g. promise not to complain)

A

White v Bluett

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case authority: Giving up a legal right is sufficient consideration

A

Hamer v Sidway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Case authority: Performance must go above and beyond their existing duties in order to be good consideration.

A

Collins v Godefroy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case authority: Promising to do something you are already obliged to do under contract to a 3rd party is good consideration.

A

Scotson v Pegg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case authority: General rule - performance of an existing contractual obligation is not good consideration.

A

Stilk v Myrick

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case authority: Going above and beyond existing obligations is good consideration.

A

Hartley v Ponsonby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the criteria for the Williams v Roffey Bros exception to the general rule that performance of a contractual obligation is not good consideration.

A
  1. A already has a contract with B
  2. B has reason to doubt that A will complete
  3. B approaches A and promises to pay A extra to complete on time.
  4. A obtains a ‘practical benefit’ / avoids a disbenefit
  5. B’s promise was not the result of duress or fraud
  6. The benefit to B is capable of being consideration, so B’s promise to pay more is binding.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Define: Duress

A

“Some form of coercion or threat to the person, property, or to the person’s financial interests” (Poole)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the test for duress to the person?

A

The duress need only be ‘a’ reason for entering into contract. (Barton v Armstrong)

17
Q

What is the test for causation for duress to goods?

A

‘But for’ test (The Siboen & The Sibotre)

18
Q

Define: Economic duress

A

“There must be pressure, resulting in (a) a lack of practical choice for the victim, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract.” (DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo)

19
Q

Case authority: Lack of practical choice

A

B&S Contracts v Victor Green Publishing

20
Q

Case authority: Threatened breach of contract is likely to constitute illegitimate pressure.

A

Kolmar Group v Traxpo Enterprises

21
Q

Case authority: Threat not to contract in future was legitimate and not in bad faith - I was based on a genuinely mistaken reading of the contract

A

CTN v Gallagher

22
Q

Case authority: Freely negotiated hard bargain is not duress

A

Alec Lobb v Total Oil

23
Q

Case authority: Refusing to continue dangerous diving work without insurance was not bad faith

A

DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo

24
Q

Case authority: Victim must protest as soon as duress is lifted.

A

B&S Contracts v Victor Green

25
Q

Case authority: If a claimant delays in claiming after the duress has been lifted, they may be deemed to have affirmed the contract by not acting.

A

The Atlantic Baron

26
Q

Case authority: Part payment of a debt is not good consideration

A

Foakes v Beer

27
Q

Case authority: Payment in kind will be good consideration for a debt.

A

Pinnel’s Case

28
Q

Case authority: Part-payment of a debt by a third party is good consideration

A

Welby v Drake

29
Q

Which case established the doctrine of promissory estoppel

A

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

30
Q

What are the 5 elements of promissory estoppel?

A
  1. Must be a shield not a sword
  2. A clear and unequivocal promise
  3. Change of position by the promisee in reliance on the promise
  4. The reliance need not be detrimental
  5. It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise
31
Q

Case authority: Promissory estoppel must be a shield not a sword.

A

Combe v Combe

32
Q

Case authority: Promissory estoppel requires a clear and unequivocal promise

A

Woodhouse Cocoa v Nigerian Produce

33
Q

Case authority: Change of position by the promisee must be in reliance on the promise for promissory estoppel to have effect.

A

Ajayi v Briscoe

34
Q

Case authority: Reliance need not be detrimental for promissory estoppel to have effect

A

The Post Chaser

35
Q

Case authority: It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise for estoppel to have effect

A

D&C Builders v Rees

36
Q

Case authority: Rights waived under promissory estoppel may be resumed on reasonable notice

A

Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric

37
Q

Case authority: Rights waived under promissory estoppel may be resumed when the circumstances giving rise to the estoppel cease

A

CLP v High Trees

38
Q

Define: Consideration

A

“An act or forbearance of one party, or promise thereof, is the price for which the other is bought” (Dunlop v Selfridge)

Contract Law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions