Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

CARMEN

CONTRACT LAW

CONSIDERATION

CONSIDERATION



-
-
-
-

Distinguishes legally enforceable promises from ordinary promises


Value for promise / agreement not necessarily monetary terms
Currie v Misa each will benefit or suffer detriment
NOT NEEDED FOR DEEDS

Executory consideration
Done in future after contract formed
Bilateral contracts
Executed consideration
Already been performed
Unilateral contracts - Carlill

1. MUST NOT BE PAST CONSIDERATION
- Past consideration not good consideration Roscorla v Thomas
Exemptions :
- Given at promisors request Lampleigh v Braitwait
- Some benefit conferred ReCasey Patent / Pau On v Lau Yiu Long
2.
-
-

3.
-

4.
-
-
-
-
-

5.
-
-

MUST MOVE FROM PROMISEE


Promisee must give something / consideration
Tweddle v Atkinson cannot sue because consideration did not move from promise
NEED NOT BE ADEQUATE BUT SUFFICIENT
Chappell v Nestle 3 wrappers good consideration for purchase of record
MUST BE REAL
Value in eyes of law not easy to state must give a feel
Motive not same as consideration Hadley v Kemp / Thomas v Thomas
Impossibility Hall v Cazenove already past
Uncertainty White v Bluett too vague , not substantial
Forbearance to sue good consideration Alliance Bank v Broom
EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY
Would not constitute consideration
Collins v Godefroy duty to appear as witness
Exemptions
If went beyond duty Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC / Ward v Byham

-

6. EXISTING DUTY OWED TO 3RD PARTY
- Good consideration
- Shadwell v Shadwell / The Eurymedon

CARMEN

CONTRACT LAW

7. EXISTING DUTY OWED TO PROMISOR


- Already contractually bound to do it cannot sue
- Stilk v Myrick
Exemptions:
- Went beyond duty - Hartley v Ponsonby
- Practical benefit William v Roffey Bros & Nicholls
8.
-
-
-
-
-
-

CONSIDERATION

Practical benefit in William



- Avoided Penalty Clause
- Avoided trouble of finding
another contractor

Discharge of Debt
General rule no consideration Pinnels case / Foakes v Beer
Cannot apply practical benefit argument Re Selectmove Ltd
Hiramchand v Punanchand v Temple cannot sue commit fraud
Exemptions:
Difference in performance / date / place
Lengthy negotiations
Composition of creditors suffered detriment

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

-
-
-

Lord Dennings Obiter Dicta High Trees Case


Stops from going back on promise
Adopted in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

REQUIREMENTS:

1. Clear, unambiguous, unequivocal promise

2. Inequitable to go back on promise D & C v Builders v Rees

3. Alteration of position promise has changed position, not allowed to go back on promise-
element of detriment not necessary Alan v El Nasr

4. Suspensive or extinctive stop something temporarily / destroy completely
- Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric - suspensive

5. P.Estoppel not a cause of action ( lawsuit)
- One can rely on P.Estoppel when sued but cannot use t to sue other person
- Combe v Combe a shield not a sword can use to defend
- Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer