PQ

Question 1

someone is demanding more money or they cannot fulfil obligations, they don’t provide additional duties. What is the approach

Answer 1

the issue is concerned with consideration. first we look at what they have provided
1. the general rule- STILK V MYRICK- the performance of an existing contractual duty is not sufficient

exceptions.
1. doing more than your contractual duty is sufficient. Hartley v Ponsonby
2. if it offers a practical benefit to them or avoids a disbenefit.- Williams v Roffey
3. existing duty is good consideration for a 3rd party- Shadwell v Shadwell

1. MORE THAN DUTY - consideration is sufficient then look at P.E
2. PRACTICAL BENEFIT -
   a. Glidewell scope from Williams v roffeydefined that it is only possible to rely on this if there is no economic duress or fraud.
   b. economic duress- R v attorney general- ‘illegitimate threat’ resulting in ‘compulsion of will’ meaning there is no ‘practical alternative’ (Atlas express v Kafco. The Atlantic Baron- threat to break contract is illegitimate itself.
   c. if these are satisfied, there is valid consideration and you look at P.E
3. 3rd party duty- look at P.E

Question 2

past consideration

Question 3

A promises to pay X amount to B, after the work has been done A refuses to pay B. there is valid consideration. what rights do they have

Answer 3

can use promissory estoppel as a defence to prevent them going back on their promise.

requirements are as set out
1. first set out in the CENTRAL LONDON PROPERTY V HIGH TREES. a promise was made with the intention to be binding which was going to be acted upon.
then refined by later cases
1. there must be a clear and unequivocal promise. (WOODHOUSE V NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING)
2. there must have been reliance on the promise to cause change in their action -W J Alan v El Nasr
3. inequitable/ unfair to go back on promise (D & C Builders v Rees)
4. shield not a sword (Combe v Combe)

Question 4

part payment of debt

Answer 4

the legal issue here is a limitation to consideration.
general rule- FOAKES V BEER- part payment of debt is not valid consideration.

exception
- pines case, if it is accompanied by or replaced with something other than money, it can be valid.

Question 5

exclusion clause being part of the contract

Answer 5

Daniel notes

Question 6

misrepresentation

Answer 6

matter of fact/law
opinion rule…

Question 7

implied terms

Question 8

frustration

Question 9

remedies