Notes Consideration Flashcards
When will equity uphold promises not supported by consideration?
Through promissory estoppel.
What are the rules governing consideration?
- must not be past
- must be sufficient but not adequate
- it must move from the promisee
- an existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration
- an existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration
- part payment of debt is not valid consideration to forgo the balance
What is meant by consideration must not be past?
Re McArdle - carried out work and then promised payment, past consideration and therefore not binding.
What is meant by consideration must be sufficient but not adequate?
Something of value must be given but it doesn’t have to be market value (Chapple v Nestle - although wrappers were thrown away they were of value as they increased sales).
What is meant by consideration must move from the promisee?
If a person other than the promisee is to provide the consideration then the promise cannot enforce the agreement (Tweddle V Atkinson).
What is meant by an existing public duty?
Collins v Godfrey - subpoenaed to attend court, legally bound duty therefore no consideration for waiting to be seen. Unless he went beyond his public duty (Glasbrook - mining strike; Ward v Bynham - happy child).
What is an existing contractual duty and why can it not provide consideration?
If there’s an existing duty it cannot be used for new consideration (Stilk v Myrick) unless they go beyond their duty (Hartley v Posonby) or they confer a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey)
Why is part payment of a debt not valid consideration?
It’s not to release the full debt (Pinnel’s case) unless the promisor requests part payment is made:
- before the due date
- with a chattel
- to a different destination
Affirmed in Foakes v Beer.
What are he exceptions to part payment of a debt not being valid consideration?
Where part payment is made by a third party (Hirachand) or in promissory estoppel.
What is the definition of consideration?
Currie v Misa defined it as a detriment to the promisee and a benefit to the promisor. Must be something of value in the eyes of the law (Thomas v Thomas).
