You are on page 1of 2

CONSIDERATION 1 EXCEPTION (CONSIDERATION NOT SUFFICIENT)

PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTY


19th Centruy terminology of benefits & detriments. ENGLAND v DAVID
Each party to the contract must suffer a loss or detriment in return for Factdict: - England, police, give evidence (public duty) = no reward
benefit. UNLESS….
CURRIE v MISA EXCEEDS OWN DUTY
GLASBROOK BROS v GLAMORGAN CC
TYPES OF CONSIDERATION Factdict: - Mobile police acted over their duty to Glasbrook to
( 1 ) EXECUTORY CONSIDERATION remain stationary at their coal mine.
- Acts to be done in the future PRACTICAL BENEFIT
( 2 ) EXECUTED CONSIDERATION WILLIAMS v ROFREY BROS
- Completed Acts Facts: - Rofrey got contracted to refurbish block of flats
- Rofrey subcontract carpenty work to Williams
- Williams in financial difficulties bcause price too low
CONDITIONS - Rofrey knew about Williams and if work not
( 1 ) CONSIDERATION MUST NOT BE PAST completed, Rofrey had to pay penalty
Act that has been performed = gratuitous - ∴ Rofrey pays additional money to William
∴ Promise made after act = not consideration Verdict: - There is benefit to Rofrey
- ∴ Valid consideration
RE MCARDLE PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY
Facts: - Mcardle's son did improvements to house
- then he got siblings to sign a document to share the costs STILK v MYRICK
Verdict: - No valid contract as act has been performed. Factdict: Captain no obligation to pay existing crew extra money to
Moral Obligations = not legal obligation sail back when 2 out of 11 sailors left ship.
EASTWOOD v KENYON UNLESS….
EXCEPTIONS: HARTLEY v PONSONBY
Factdict: Captain is obliged to pay existing crew extra money to act
PREVIOUS REQUEST above normal duty, sailing back, as 19 out of 36 crew left,
- Promisor request promisee to perform act then pay causing the ship to be seriously undermaned (dangerous).
- Agreement must be clearly understood by both EXCEPTION:
PAU ON v LAU YIU LONG PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING
BUSINESS SITUATION CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWNED TO THIRD
- In business context = trust exists PARTY
RE CASEY Promise to perform existing duty to 3rd party
Facts: - A & B owned patent, promised C 1/3 share if he run is good consideration
The company as manager for 2 years EURYMEDON
Verdict: - Valid consideration in the context of business
Factdict: - HL: Carriers got contract from both firm of
( 2 ) CONSIDERATION MUST START FROM PROMISEE stevedores and Consignees of the goods
Promisee must do things to satisfy consideration. to unload the ship = both amounts to
good consideration.
TWEDDLE v ATKINSON
Factdict: 'No stranger to consideration can take advantage of a contract, ACTS OF FOREBEARANCE
although made for his benefit.' A person has valid claim against another in contract or tort, but promise
( 3 ) CONSIDERATION MUST BE SUFFICIENT BUT NEED NOT not to enforce it, in return, for certain promise.
BE ADEQUATE ALLIANCE BANK v BROOM
Consideration must have some value Factdict: - Bank ask for securities from broom, in return, for not
Court will not care whether the value is equivalent or not suing Broom for the money own = good consideration.
MIDLAND BANK v GREEN
Factdict: - Husband conveyed an estate to wife at extremely low price

PAGE 1 PAGE 2

LATER REAFFIRM in:


Facts: - Central London rent block of flats to High Trees
2nd World War, High Trees no tenant = No money to pay rent
Central London agreed to reduced rent by half
1945, War ended = occupancy rate returned to normal
Central London sued to recover the original rent in the last half of 1945
CONSIDERATION 2 Verdict: - Lord Denning: -[OBITER DICTUM] Although no consideration but
under 'general equitable principle'
PART-PAYMENT = Central London cannot recover
General Rule: - Creditor not bound by undertaking to accept part balance in war times.
payment in full settlement of debt
Debtor liable even when creditor agreed to release - 5 CONDITIONS FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
him from liability ( 1 ) CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT BY THE
PINNEL PROMISOR THAT HIS STRICT LEGAL RIGHTS WILL
Facts: - Cole own Pinnel some money NOT BE ENFORCED
- Pinnel requested for part-payment on an earlier date 1 party must make a promise which is intended to be binding
- Pinnel then sued for the remaining sum
Verdict: - Part-payment = no consideration THE SCAPTRADE
EXCEPTIONS if Creditor… It can be implied by conduct
Accepts part-pay on earlier date HUGHES v METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
Accepts chattel instead of cash ( 2 ) PROMISEE MUST ACT IN RELIANCE ON PROMISE
Accepts part-pay in different place Promisee must have changed his position to his detriment, aliter, it will
Pinnel's principles reiterated in: be put in a worse position if promise is revoke.
FOAKES v BEER AJAYI v BRISCOE
Facts: - Dr. Foakes owed Julia Beer $ on a judgment.
- 2 parties entered into an agreement where if Foakes
( 3 ) INEQUITABLE FOR PROMISOR TO GO BACK ON HIS
pay Beer £500 at once + remainder in installments, PROMISE TO REVERT HIS STRICT LEGAL RIGHTS
Mrs. Beer would forgive the interest on the debt. Promisor can revert his promise upon giving reasonable notice, provided
- This is a suit for the interest brought by Beer against it's not inequitable for him.
Foakes, alleging that there was no consideration to
forgive the interest.
( 4 ) ONLY BE USED AS 'SHIELD' NOT 'SWORD'
Verdict: CA held that Beer is entitled to recover the interest Party who waived his rights will be estopped from denying that he
Principle: - If one own people $, one is obliged to pay back intened it to be binding
the $ + interest if possible. COMBE v COMBE
RE SELECTMOVE Factdicts: - When divorced, husband promised wife to pay her £100
Facts: - Selectmove owed arrears of tax to Inland Revenue yearly but wife only sue husband 7 yrs later for not paying
Inland Revenue was able to put it into liquidation ( 5 ) SUSPENSORY IN EFFECT
Selectmove proposed to tax collector that it will pay
off the arrears at the rate of £1000 monthly - CENTRAL LONDON PROPERTY v HIGH TREES
Inland Revenue commenced liquidation, but
Selectmove insist there was a contract
Verdict: - CA: No consideration + tax collect = no authority
- When you have duty to pay back $ you owned,
pratical benefit in WILLIAM v ROFREY does
not apply.

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
General Rule: "Equitable Remedy" to make promise binding in
absence of consideration.
HUGHES v METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
Facts: - Lease says tenant must repair the premises, and landlord must give
tenant 6 months notice to do so, aliter = forfeit lease
- Tenant starts to sell the lease to the landlord, stating that in the
meantime, it would not start the repairs
- Negotiations broke down and a few days later = landlord sought the
forfeitation of the lease
Verdict: - HL: - Landlord led one of the parties to believe that the strict legal
rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be
held in suspense = inequitable to enforce the original rights.
PAGE 3