How many types of consideration is there and what are they?
Answer: Three.
1) Executory
2)executed
3) past consideration
2.
What is consideration
Answer: Wherein both parties should something out of it.
“An act of one party or the promise, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable” Per Dunedin Lj, Dunlop v Selfridge 1915
3.
What is executory consideration?
Answer: The promise of party A is made in return for the promise of party B
4.
What is executed consideration?
Answer: One party has executed their half, the other party’s consideration is still executory (yet to be done).
5.
What is past consideration?
Answer: A service provided by one party before the promise of a reward is made by the other party
6.
What are the golden rules for consideration?
Answer: 1) C must not be past
2) C must move from the promise
3) C must be sufficient, not adequate
4) C must be performance on an existing obligation either under a) a contract or b) law.
7.
What’s not considered good consideration?
Answer: Part payment
8.
What’s the case for consideration must not be past
Answer: Re Mcardle (1951)
Content preview
CASE SHEET
CONSIDERATION
╰▷ Cases for Golden rules/Good consideration.
1) Must not be past Daughter-in -law unable to claim costs for
RE MCARDLE [1951] improvement as the promise to reimburse
her came after improvements were made.
Exception to past consideration Promise of payment was made after
LAMPLEIGH V BRATHWAITE [1615] performance however came from
Defendant so consideration valid.
2) Must move from the promise The groom could not sue his father-in-law
TWEDDLE V ATKINSON [1861] who agreed to provide money for the newly
wed couple, because although the groom
was named in the contract, he himself did
not provide any consideration.
(Consideration was between the fathers of
the couple).
3) Must be sufficient (of some Wrappers form part of consideration as the
economic value) object was to increase value. So, nestle
CHAPPEL V NESTLE [1960] couldn’t retail records lower because
wrappers being thrown away didn’t
diminish the value. Nestle no longer
allowed to sell records for breaching s.8
Copy Rights Act.
4) Pre-existing contractual duty owed Uncle bound to pay nephew yearly in
to a third party exchange for marrying a third party
SHADWELL V SHADWELL [1860]
5) Pre-existing contractual duty owed Ship owner not bound to share wages
to the promisor belonging to 2 other crew members to the
STILK V MYRICK [1809] rest of the crew as they were under
contractual duty to sail the ship, including
dealing with ‘normal’ emergencies.
6) Must be fresh (pre-existing legal Promise made by the defendant
duty) unenforceable as officer was under legal
COLLINS V GODEFROY [1831] duty to attend court.
7) Exception to providing fresh Father agreed to pay ex if she ensured their
consideration child was well looked after and happy.
WARD V BYHAM [1956] Upon her remarrying, he stopped
payments, arguing it was her legal duty to
, look after child. But she gone beyond pre-
existing legal duty by ensuring child
happy/well looked after.
PROMISSORY ESTOPEL
╰▷ A lesser sum for the full amount of the debt cannot be valid consideration
1) Originated The creditor can sue for balance due debtor
PINNELS CASE [1602] doesn’t provide any fresh consideration
2) Modern case Beer agreed Foakes could pay in
FOAKES V BEER [1894] instalments, later wanting interest on
judgment debt. Beer entitled to add
interest due to Pinnels Case.
3) Starting point of Promissory Estopel Dennis J established P.E prevented CLP
CLP (Central London Property) V going back on their promise (which was
HTH [1947] lower rent during the years of war)
Requirements of Promissory Estopel:
1) Clear and unequivocal promise: [no case]
Must be clear promisor is giving up
his strict legal rights
2) ‘Shield not a sword’ (not a cause of Wife unable to sue Husband (who promised
action) but failed to make payments) because she
P.E only used as a defence to a claim sought to use P.E as a sword to try enforce
COMBE V COMBE [1951] Husband’s promise of maintenance
3) Inequitable (unfair) for promisor to Builders settled for lesser amount of what
go back on promise (e.g., not given actually due, accepting out of pressure.
under duress) Lord Denning: “Mrs Rees’s threat ‘take it or
D&C BUILDERS V REES [1965] leave it’ inequitable (unfair)
4) Reliance altered his position https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/
Promise was only to show reliance, cases/ajayi-colony-carrier-v-rt-briscoe-
not detriment (i.e., altered his nigeria/
position)
AJAYI V BRISCOE [1972]
5) Suspension (notice) https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Tool-
Promissor can reassert his right to Metal-Manufacturing-v-Tungsten.php
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller soniyabegh. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
