lecture 3 Flashcards
Balfour v Balfour (1919)
wife promised allowance, held not enforceable.
shows domestic promises are not legally bound contracts
Merrit v Merrit
domestic agreement principle does not apply to seperated or estranged partners
Snelling v John G Snelling Ltd
presumption of domestic agreements can be rebutted using evidence to the contrary
rebutting presumption in commercial cases
the onus is a “heavy one” - Edwards v Skyways Ltd - promise to make goodwill payments to employees held to be enforceable
consideration
an additional requirement beyond agreement, certainty of terms and intention to create legal relations
privity rule
common law rule that a person is not a party, cannot sue on a contract they are not party to and have not provided consideration
dunlop v selfridge
dunlop sought damages from defendant however was a third party
ways around privity rule
the person to whom the promise is and supplies the consideration was agent for the other party
there is an implied collateral contract between the promise and the third party
the promisee can sue on behalf of the third party
Contracts (Right of the Third Parties) Act 1999
allows third party to enforce a contract term where:
the contract “expressly provides that he may”
or
the term “purports to confer a benefit on him, unless “on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party”
Combe v Combe
wife argued husbands promise to pay 100 per annum was supported by consideration in that she did not make a financial claim against her husband - held no consideration
implied requests
principle seems to be that the greater likelihood that a promisee would have acted differently had the promise not been made, the more likely it is that the promisees act had been deemed impliedly requested
Roscorla v Thomas
D sold horse to C without making any promise as to its fitness. Later, D assured C that it was free of defects. Ds assurance was unenforceable - Cs earlier payment could not be consideration for it
Pao On case
held that past acts can be used to establish consideration for a present promise to pay them where-
the act was done on the promisors request
the parties “must have understood that the act was to be remunerated”
the promise would have been enforceable had it been made at the time of the act
the value of consideration, does it matter?
adequate value is not required, consideration can be nominal
Chappell v Nestle
N ran promotional scheme in which customers could buy a record by the King Brothers by sending 1/4 of normal price and 3 chocolate wrappers. Chappell claimed for unpaid royalties..
held - wrappers were part of the consideration
what is not good consideration
mere sentiment / good feeling is not enough
Bret v JS
a mothers “natural affection” for her son was not good consideration
White v Bluett
Sons promise not to complain to his father was not good consideration
Hamer v Sidaway (US case)
undertakings in domestic/social contexts may be good consideration is onerous enough.
Consideration was established by: A nephew undertaking to abstain from drinking, smoking, gambling and bad language.
Abandoning/Forebearing to enforce a legal right
giving up a legal claim is good consideration. called a “release” of the claim, or a settlement of a claim.
valid consideration even if the claim was invalid as a matter of law, so long as it was being advanced in good faith
general or public duties as good consideration
a duty imposed by general law is not good consideration, but a promise to do more than is strictly necessary may amount to good consideration
contractual duties owed to third parties
performance of a contractual duty owed to a third party is regarded as good consideration, a man marrying his fiance, which he was obligated to do anyway, was good consideration for his uncles promise to pay an allowance if he did so
more for the same promises
general rule is that a promise to pay more for the same is not good consideration
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
a ships master promised to distribute the wages of deserting sailors among the remaining crew. held there was no consideration for this promise, as remaining sailors did nothing more than they had been engaged to do
less for the same consideration
part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise by the creditor to release the debtor of the remainder
Foakes v Beer
held that a taxpayer could not argue that a deal to give it time to pay a tax debt was supported by consideration, despite the practical benefit to revenue of the taxpayer not being put into liquidation
