Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Consideration

    Uploaded by

    Carmen Yong
    181 views2 pages
    This document discusses the legal concept of consideration in contract law. It defines consideration as the value exchanged between parties in a legally binding agreement. Consideration distinguishes enforceable promises from ordinary promises and can be monetary or non-monetary benefits conferred on either party. There are several requirements and exceptions discussed regarding what constitutes valid consideration, including that it cannot be past consideration, must move from the promisee, need not be adequate but sufficient, and existing duties or debts usually do not qualify unless additional conditions are met. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is also summarized as an alternative way to enforce certain non-contractual promises based on reliance and injustice.

    Original Description:

    m

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses the legal concept of consideration in contract law. It defines consideration as the value exchanged between parties in a legally binding agreement. Consideration distinguishes enforceable promises from ordinary promises and can be monetary or non-monetary benefits conferred on either party. There are several requirements and exceptions discussed regarding what constitutes valid consideration, including that it cannot be past consideration, must move from the promisee, need not be adequate but sufficient, and existing duties or debts usually do not qualify unless additional conditions are met. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is also summarized as an alternative way to enforce certain non-contractual promises based on reliance and injustice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    181 views2 pages

    Consideration

    Uploaded by

    Carmen Yong
    This document discusses the legal concept of consideration in contract law. It defines consideration as the value exchanged between parties in a legally binding agreement. Consideration distinguishes enforceable promises from ordinary promises and can be monetary or non-monetary benefits conferred on either party. There are several requirements and exceptions discussed regarding what constitutes valid consideration, including that it cannot be past consideration, must move from the promisee, need not be adequate but sufficient, and existing duties or debts usually do not qualify unless additional conditions are met. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is also summarized as an alternative way to enforce certain non-contractual promises based on reliance and injustice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 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

    You might also like