ELEMENT 4: CONSIDERATION Flashcards
Foakes v Beer
- Dr foakes owed Mr Beer 2090 pounds
-after court, Dr foakes decided to pay in instalment - later Mr Beer decided to ask for interest
- court ruled in favour of Mr Beer as paying in by small intervals cannot satisfy the whole debt rather than giving paying the exact sum immediately
D and C builders ltd v Rees
- Builders were owed 482 pounds
- they later were paid 300 pounds which they reluctantly accept
- they can sue for the balance
Central London Property v High Trees House
- an agreement made during world war 2 says that tenants can pay half of the rent
- after 2 years, the owner wants to claim back the rent owed the last 2 years
-court ruled that owner could not claimed payment as it was estopped from going back on their promise
(Promissory Estoppel)
Combe v Combe
- ex wife wanted to claim 2 pound a week promise from husband
- court denied
- promissory estoppel can only be used as defence, not action
Stilk v Myrick
- 2 people from an 11 man ship abandoned the ship
- an offer was made if they the sailors can sail back safely
- was considered not a consideration
- it was their contractual duty to do so, not valid consideration
Hartley v Ponsoby
- promise to pay more
- crew was down from 36-19 members
- ## excessive due to how dangerous it is
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long
- Plaintiff owned shares in a building that defendant wanted
- Defendant was part of a public company, so Plaintiff decided to sell share in private company
- in exchange, the Plaintiff would get shares in Public Company
- fearing public company’s share will drop, Plaintiff and defendant agreed that P won’t sale shares for a while
- Plaintiff fearing that they would be harmed by this, suggested that Plaintiff will be compensate from any harm (loss in shares) and benefits (rise of shares)
- Defendant agreed as to not delay contract
- Share value did drop and Plaintiff sought out the compensation contract.
- Defendant refused
- there was consideration because Plaintiff was protecting Defendant’s company
Williams v Rofferey Bros and Nicholls Contractors Ltd
-Defendant subcontracted (gave job) to Claimant for carpentry for 20 000
- Claimant had financial issues
- Defendant offered to pay extra 10 300 if finished on time so that doesn’t get penalty fees
- claimant finished on time but defendant refuses to pay
- Defendant must pay as it is enforceable due to the fact that Defendant didn’t have to pay penalty fees (practical benefit)
Collins v Godefroy
- promise to give policeman if he attended up to court
- not consideration as it is an existing public duty
Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan
- Police who provided extra protection was considered consideration
- this can only happen if it is excessive
Shaklin v Pier Detel Products
- the owners of piers succeeded in suing the manufacturer
- due to the paint job not being water resistant
Tweedle v Atkinson
- two fathers had agreed to pay the couple a sum of money
- the wife died
- the husband sued
- it was dismissed because he was not part of party
Thomas v Thomas
- the landlord gave a widow rent for 1 pound for a year
- charged by executors considered good consideration
- must have economic value, regardless good or bad
White v Bluet
- the father of Bluett had lent Bluett a sum of money and died before Bluett could repay him
- White was the one who handle father of Bluett’s case
- White sued Bluett for outstanding payment
- Bluett said that the father would waive the son’s debt if he agreed to the father’s plan of distributing estate
- not complaining agains the distribution of estate for the family to waive debt was not a consideration
Chapple v Nestle
Nestle offered a music record normal costing 6s 6d for 1s 6d plus three chocolate bar wrappers held to be good consideration
