Consideration Revision Flashcards
The definition of consideration arises from case law, which two cases in particular?
Currie v Misa and
Dunlop v Selfridge
What happened in the case of Currie v Misa, under the definition of consideration?
The case involved a dispute concerning the stopped payment of a cheque; Lush J referred to consideration as consisting of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other
How did Dunlop v Selfridge under the definition of consideration define consideration?
Lord Dunedin approved Pollock’s definition of consideration being ‘an act of promise or the promise thereof is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable
The case involved a dispute concerning the stopped payment of a cheque; Lush J referred to consideration as consisting of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other
What case defined this?
Currie v Misra
Lord Dunedin approved Pollock’s definition of consideration being ‘an act of promise or the promise thereof is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable
Which case is this?
Dunlop v Selfridge
What are the 3 principle rules of consideration?
consideration must move from the promisee
consideration must not be past
consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
What does consideration must move from the promisee mean?
that the person to whom a promise is made can only enforce that promise if they themselves provided consideration for it
The promise of consideration cannot be enforced if the consideration moved from a third party, which case is authority for this rule?
Tweddle v Atkinson
What happened in the case of Tweedle v Atkinson
The promise of consideration cannot be enforced if the consideration moved from a third party/
the fathers of a man and women who intended to marry agreed in writing that both should pay money to the women’s husband, however the women’s father died before paying to which the executors of his will refused to pay.
Legal Principle: the claim brought by the husband failed as he himself had not given consideration for the agreement
the fathers of a man and women who intended to marry agreed in writing that both should pay money to the women’s husband, however the women’s father died before paying to which the executors of his will refused to pay.
Legal Principle: the claim brought by the husband failed as he himself had not given consideration for the agreement
What case is this under which topic?
Tweedle v Atkinson
The promise of consideration cannot be enforced if the consideration moved from a third party/
Consideration must not be past
What are the 3 types of consideration?
executory consideration -future acts executed consideration -reward contracts past consideration -cannot enforce
What is the primary case for authority that consideration must not be past?
Re McArdle
what happened in the case of Re McArdle
under consideration must not be past?
a woman’s mother in law died to which the house she lived was to pass to her son and 3 children; even though the mother in law made her children sign an agreement to pay back the daughter in law for her repairs and improvements, the children refused to pay
the claim was unsuccessful as she had already performed the act before the promise to pay had been made; therefore consideration was past
a woman’s mother in law died to which the house she lived was to pass to her son and 3 children; even though the mother in law made her children sign an agreement to pay back the daughter in law for her repairs and improvements, the children refused to pay
the claim was unsuccessful as she had already performed the act before the promise to pay had been made; therefore consideration was past
What case is this under which topic?
Re McArdle
under consideration must not be past
If a guarantee is made in respect of something after it has been sold then there is no consideration for that guarantee & not binding, what case supports this?
Roscorla
what is the case of Roscorla authority for?
If a guarantee is made in respect of something after it has been sold then there is no consideration for that guarantee & not binding,
What case demonstrates the exception to the general rule that consideration must not be past?
Lampleigh
What happened in the case of Roscorla which is authority for the fact that If a guarantee is made in respect of something after it has been sold then there is no consideration for that guarantee & not binding,?
the plaintiff contracted to buy a horse from the defendant which the defendant said was free from vice, which it was not
the claim failed as the oral warranty was held to be past consideration
What happened in the case of Lampleigh which concerns the general exception to the rule that consideration must not be past?
the defendant killed another man and asked the plaintiff to secure a pardon, the plaintiff went to considerable effort and expense to pardon the defendant who subsequently promised to pay a given sum which he then failed to pay
the plaintiff’s claim was successful as though his efforts were past in relation to the promise to pay, the court considered that there was an implied promise he would be rewarded and reimbursed for his efforts
the defendant killed another man and asked the plaintiff to secure a pardon, the plaintiff went to considerable effort and expense to pardon the defendant who subsequently promised to pay a given sum which he then failed to pay
the plaintiff’s claim was successful as though his efforts were past in relation to the promise to pay, the court considered that there was an implied promise he would be rewarded and reimbursed for his efforts
What case is this under which topic?
Lampleigh which concerns the general exception to the rule that consideration must not be past
What is the general rule from the case of Lampleigh?
that if services are rendered on request an where both parties understand that payment will be made, the promise may be enforceable even though the consideration is past
the case of Lampleigh meant that that if services are rendered on request an where both parties understand that payment will be made, the promise may be enforceable even though the consideration is past, what case affirmed this principle?
Re Casey’s Parents with the criteria being restated by Lord Scarman in Pao On a century later
the case of Lampleigh meant that that if services are rendered on request an where both parties understand that payment will be made, the promise may be enforceable even though the consideration is past, the case of Re Casey’s Parents affirmed this principle, which the case of Pao On affirmed a century later when restated by Lord Scarman; what criteria did he note? (3)
- The act must have been done at the promisor’s request
- The parties must have understaff that the act was to be remunerated further by a payment or the conferment of some benefit
- The payment, or conferment of benefit, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
- The act must have been done at the promisor’s request
- The parties must have understaff that the act was to be remunerated further by a payment or the conferment of some benefit
- The payment, or conferment of benefit, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
Which case noted this criteria under consideration must not be past?
Lord Scarman in Pao On, reaffirming principle in Lampleigh and Re Casey’s Parents
What are the two sprimary case for the principe that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate?
Thomas v Thomas and
Chappell and Co
What happened in the case of Thomas v Thomas under the principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate ?
a husband expressed his wish that his wife should be allowed to remain in their house after his death but was not written in his will. His executors allowed the wife to stay in the house for a rent of £1 a year and later tried to dispossess her
Legal Principle: The payment of the peppercorn rent was sufficient consideration for the contract to be enforceable. However the husband’s wish alone would not have been sufficient
a husband expressed his wish that his wife should be allowed to remain in their house after his death but was not written in his will. His executors allowed the wife to stay in the house for a rent of £1 a year and later tried to dispossess her
Legal Principle: The payment of the peppercorn rent was sufficient consideration for the contract to be enforceable. However the husband’s wish alone would not have been sufficient
What case is this under which topic?
Thomas v Thomas under the principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
in order to be sufficient in law, what 3 things must consideration be?
- tangible
- valueable
- real
though consideration is most straightforward when the value is pecuniary (expressed in terms of money) this is not the only way in which something can be viewed as valuable; which 2 cases are examples of this?
White v Bluett and
Ward v Bytham
What happened in the case of White v Bluett under the principle that though consideration is most straightforward when the value is pecuniary (expressed in terms of money) this is not the only way in which something can be viewed as valuable
a son attempted to claim that he did not owe his late father’s estate repayment of a sum of money due to a promissory note since he had agreed with his father that the debt would be written off in return for his promise not to complain about the will
this promise not to complain was held to be insuffciently tangible to amount to good consideration
a son attempted to claim that he did not owe his late father’s estate repayment of a sum of money due to a promissory note since he had agreed with his father that the debt would be written off in return for his promise not to complain about the will
this promise not to complain was held to be insuffciently tangible to amount to good consideration
What case is this under which topic?
White v Bluett under the principle that though consideration is most straightforward when the value is pecuniary (expressed in terms of money) this is not the only way in which something can be viewed as valuable
What happened in the case of Ward v Bytham under he principle that though consideration is most straightforward when the value is pecuniary (expressed in terms of money) this is not the only way in which something can be viewed as valuable
a mother’ promise to keep her illegitimate child well looked after and happy in return for money towards the child’s upkeep from its father was held to be sufficient consideration (since there is no legal duty to keep a child happy)
a mother’ promise to keep her illegitimate child well looked after and happy in return for money towards the child’s upkeep from its father was held to be sufficient consideration (since there is no legal duty to keep a child happy)
What case is this under which topic?
Ward v Bytham under he principle that though consideration is most straightforward when the value is pecuniary (expressed in terms of money) this is not the only way in which something can be viewed as valuable
What happened in the case of Chappell & Co under the principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate?
Nestle were offering a record for sale for 1s 6d plus three wrappers of their chocolate bars
the record normally sold it at 6s 8d
permission to use the copyright was not obtained; chappell sued to prevent the promotion since they would review a much lower royalty from it
Legal principle:
the wrappers were held to be part of the consideration even though they were thrown away when received
the fact that the wrappers were of no value to nestle was irrelevant; as a contrcating party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses
a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn
Nestle were offering a record for sale for 1s 6d plus three wrappers of their chocolate bars
the record normally sold it at 6s 8d
permission to use the copyright was not obtained; chappell sued to prevent the promotion since they would review a much lower royalty from it
Legal principle:
the wrappers were held to be part of the consideration even though they were thrown away when received
the fact that the wrappers were of no value to nestle was irrelevant; as a contrcating party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses
a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn
What case is this under which topic?
Chappell & Co under principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
