WS2: Consideration, Privity and Agency

Question 1

Performance of an existing contract will not amount to sufficient consideration for a promise by the other party for extra money

Answer 1

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Question 2

If something extra is given then this can be sufficient consideration

Answer 2

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

Question 3

Anything else will count as consideration - horse/hawk/robe

Answer 3

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

Question 4

Consideration may be a benefit or a detriment, it need not be both

Answer 4

Currie v Misa (1875)

Question 5

Consideration must be sufficient, it need not be adequate

Answer 5

Chappell v Nestlé (1960)

Question 6

Past consideration is usually insufficient consideration

Answer 6

Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

Question 7

Payment of a lesser sum on the due date is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance

Answer 7

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

Foakes v Beer (1884)

Question 8

For past consideration to be valid:

(1) the act must have been done at the promisor’s request
(2) Must have been mutual understanding from the outset that the act would be rewarded in some way

Had the promise of payment been made in advance it would have been legally enforceable

Answer 8

(1) Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615)

2) Re Casey’s Patents (1892

Question 9

A promise is not good consideration (usually)

Answer 9

White v Bluett (1853)

Question 10

Exceeding an existing legal duty

Police came to protect miners - did extra work

Answer 10

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council (1925)

Question 11

Performance of an existing duty owed to another party will be consideration, provided the other party receives a practical or commercial benefit and there is no duress or fraud

Answer 11

Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)

Question 12

Conditions for Promissory Estoppel - Half rent to full rent

Answer 12

High Trees (1947)

Question 13

Promissory Estoppel - The promisee must act on the promise

Answer 13

WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr (1972)

Question 14

Promissory Estoppel - Can only be used as a defence. A shield not a sword

Answer 14

Combe v Combe (1951)

Question 15

Promisory Estoppel - It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise

Answer 15

D&C Builders v Rees (1966)

Question 16

If there is no duress or fraud then part payment of a debt SHOULD be ok.

Answer 16

Re Selectmove (1995)

Question 17

3 Conditions for an agency by estoppel

Answer 17

(1) At some stage the principal must have represented (by words or conduct) that the agent had authority;
(2) the third party must rely on this representation believing that the agent had authority; and
(3) the third party must alter his position - ie enter into a contract

Question 18

Notice to resume full rent may not always be necessary

Answer 18

Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd (1955)