Consideration
- Created by: Launston
- Created on: 14-05-14 10:01
View mindmap
- Consideration
- Definition
- Currie v Misa - Some benefit to one party and a detriment to the other
- Frederick Pollock - an act or forebearance...being the price for which the promise is bought
- Must be exchange, needed to form AND vary, can be promises
- Function
- Bade of enforceability
- Distinguishes bargains from gratuitous promises
- Bade of enforceability
- Currie v Misa - Some benefit to one party and a detriment to the other
- Rules
- Sufficient but need not be adequate
- Minimal consideration sufficient - Nestle v Chappell
- Must have some commercial value - White v Bluett
- Promising to refrain from suing can be consideration
- Must have some commercial value - White v Bluett
- Minimal consideration sufficient - Nestle v Chappell
- Must not be past
- Roscorla v Thomas
- Lampleigh v Braithwaite - services performed at request, implied payment
- Pao On - parties understood act was to be renumerated
- Lampleigh v Braithwaite - services performed at request, implied payment
- Roscorla v Thomas
- Must move from promisee
- Tweddle v Atkinson
- Sufficient but need not be adequate
- Performance of existing duties
- Existing legal duty - not good consideration
- Collins v Godefroy
- BUT Ward v Byham - going beyond duty
- Collins v Godefroy
- Owed to 3rd party
- Can use consideration to enforce promises by two different parties
- NZ Shipping v Satterthwaite
- Can use consideration to enforce promises by two different parties
- Owed to promisor
- Asking for more
- General rule: contractual duty not consideration - Stilk v Myrick
- Unless more is done - The Atlantic Baron
- Williams v Roffey - no fraud or duress AND benefit, can be enforced
- Stilk v Myrick refined - court adapted law
- Williams v Roffey - no fraud or duress AND benefit, can be enforced
- Unless more is done - The Atlantic Baron
- General rule: contractual duty not consideration - Stilk v Myrick
- Wanting to pay less
- Pinnel's Case - lesser sum in satisfaction of greater sum not good consideration
- Foakes v Beer
- Re Selectmove - Williams v Roffey does not apply to part payment because Foakes is authority
- Criticism: accepting less on earlier date is always beneficial
- Re Selectmove - Williams v Roffey does not apply to part payment because Foakes is authority
- Foakes v Beer
- Pinnel's Case - lesser sum in satisfaction of greater sum not good consideration
- Asking for more
- Existing legal duty - not good consideration
- Promissory Estoppel
- Attempt to mitigate harsh effects of rules
- Originated in Hughes v Met Railway
- High Trees case
- Clear and unequivocal promise
- Express, implied or by conduct
- Reliance by promisee
- Promisee must act equitably
- D & C Builders v Rees
- Collier - voluntary acceptance makes it automatically inequitable to go back on promise
- D & C Builders v Rees
- Clear and unequivocal promise
- Limitations
- Suspension of rights
- High Trees - went back to paying full rent
- Tungsten - reasonable notice
- High Trees - went back to paying full rent
- Shield not sword
- Cannot be used to form contract
- Combe v Combe
- Cannot be used to form contract
- Suspension of rights
- Definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made