100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Complete Notes on Consideration for Ulaw PgDL $3.89   Add to cart

Class notes

Complete Notes on Consideration for Ulaw PgDL

 12 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Institution

Complete Notes on Consideration for Ulaw PgDL

Preview 2 out of 14  pages

  • March 19, 2023
  • 14
  • 2022/2023
  • Class notes
  • N/a
  • All classes
  • Unknown
avatar-seller
Consideration


March 19, 2023


1 Consideration
• As mentioned, for a contract, there must be: agreement; contractual in-
tention; and consideration.
• Consideration has various definitions.
• One definition is contained in Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, which
refers to benefit and detriment.
• A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit
or benefit accruing to the party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or
responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other.
• In other words, what is provided by way of consideration should either be
a benefit to the person receiving it, or a detriment to the person giving it.
Often, both will be present.
• Consideration can also be though of as being the price one party pays for
the other party’s promise.
• Sir Frederick Pollock defined consideration as ‘an act or forbearance of
one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the
other is bought’ (Pollock on Contracts, 8th edn, p 175 ).
• Consideration must be sufficient; however, it need not be adequate.
• As consideration does not need to be adequate, this means that it does
not have to adequately reflect the value of the promise in return for which
it is given.
• However, as consideration must be sufficient, this means that it must have
some value.
• Traditionally, the fact that consideration must be sufficient, and thus have
some sort of value, has been interpreted as relating to economic value.
• Now days, this requirement for ‘economic value’ does not seem to be a
strict one.

1

, • An authority for the view that consideration does not have to have intrinsic
economic value is Chappell Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87, HL,
where Lord Somervell said that: ‘[A] contracting party can stipulate for
what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good
consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper
and will throw away the corn.’
• In this same case, Lord Reid said that: ‘[I]t is a perfectly good contract
if a person accepts an offer to supply goods if he (a) does something of
value to the supplier and (b) pays money; the consideration is both (a)
and (b).’
• Again, in some cases, the requirement for economic value is very loose.
• In the American case of Hamer v Sidway (1891) 27 NE 256, an uncle
promised to pay his nephew $5000 on his nephew’s 21st birthday on the
condition that his nephew stopped drinking alcohol, smoking, swearing
and gambling until he was 21 years of age. His nephew agreed and ‘in all
things fully performed his part of the said agreement.’
• Here, it was held that the nephew had provided consideration for the
uncle’s promise - this is particularly easy to see with the detriment view
of consideration - and so the agreement was enforceable.
• Whereas, in the English case of White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36, a
father promised not to enforce a debt against his son on condition that
the son stopped moaning about the distribution of his father’s property.
• Here, the court decided that the son had not provided consideration for
the father’s promise.
• As Hamer is an American case which may not be followed in England, as
a matter of authority, there is no conflict between Hamer and White.


2 Past Consideration
• Past consideration is no consideration.
• Past consideration will not be sufficient. An authority for this principle is
found in Roscorla v Thomas [1842] QB 234.
• In Roscorla, Roscorla bought a horse from the defendant. Afterwards, the
defendant assured Roscorla that the horse was ‘sound and free from vice.’
This proved to be untrue, and Roscorla sued the defendant for breach of
contract.
• Here, it was held that the assurance was unenforceable as Roscorla had
not given any consideration for it. Roscorla had not bought the horse in
exchange for the defendant’s promise; Roscorla had already bought the
horse.

2

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 mellish50. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $3.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$3.89
  • (0)
  Add to cart