Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Past Consideration
Su!!icient
The 8urymedon (1945) he Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound to a third party to do so, the defendant%s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the contract with the plaintiff. his was also clarified in #ao $n v au %iu ong (198&) by the -./. his was also accepted in the Singapore -igh Court in SS!. $1elosund !. v 9endral Trading #(e (d (1992)5
8as('ood v /enyon (184&) he court re1ected the plaintiff%s view and held that moral obligation is insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. Thomas v Thomas (1842) he court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration by t the husband%s wishes were irrelevant2 motives is not the same thing as consideration. :hi(e v .lue(( (1853) he court held that 3luett%s promise was nothing more than a promise $not to bore his father'. (s such it was too vague and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by his father. +ollins v "odefroy (1831) the words of /ord enterden $if it be a duty imposed by law upon a party regularly subpoenaed to attend from time to time to give his evidence, then a promise to give him remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration. #f the court finds the promisee did something more that re&uired by an e"isting public duty, then it may be sufficient. "lass;roo) .ros (d v "lamorgan +i(y +ouncil (1925) S(il) v 6yric) (18&9) #t was held that there was no consideration for the captain%s promise because the remaining crew did what they were contractually re&uired. wo sailors deserting was within the usual emergencies found in such a voyage.
Insu!!icient
-owever, if it is more than what is contractually re&uired, that may constitute good consideration :illiams v Roffey .ros and -icholls (+on(rac(ors) (d (1991) he !nglish Court of (ppeal held that as long as the e"tra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant obtained $practical benefits' from the plaintiff%s work. he benefit was that they would not be liable under the main contract for late completion.
#innel<s +ase (1*&2) he part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt un&ess the part payment was made at the re&uest of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in con1unction with some other valuable consideration. 2oa)es v .eer (1884) affirmed Pinnel%s Case the -./ held that 3eer%s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the money. Promissory !stoppel is an e&uitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to /ord Cairns in =ughes v 6e(ropoli(an Rail'ay +o (1844). 4hen p.e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. . E&e#ents (+en(ral ondon #roper(y Trus( v =igh Trees =ouse (d (1944)> ? D,+ .uilders v Rees (19**)) Parties must have e"isting legal relationship Clear and une&uivocal promise which affects the legal relationship Promisee relied upon promise and altered his position #ne&uitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. Sus ensi)e or Extincti)e 4hen the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship is restored. he effect of p.e. is to suspend promisor%s rights temporarily. Tool 6e(al 6anufac(uring +o (d v Tungs(en 8lec(ric +o (d (1995) -owever, the promise could become 5final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position.' !@ayi v R T .riscoe (-igeria) (d (19*4) S+ie&d not s$ord his means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i.e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit. +om;e v +om;e (1951) 6people sue you then can use) !ssoland +ons(ruc(ion #(e (d v 6alayan +redi( #roper(ies #(e (d (1993)
Co##ercia& Agree#ents