2495505
Description
Flashcards by shalini6rhyme, updated more than 1 year ago
More
|
Created by a deleted user
about 9 years ago
|
|
|
Copied by shalini6rhyme
about 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Currie v Misa (1875); Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] | Definition of consideration: 'some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other' |
| Thomas v Thomas (1842) | Consideration is 'something of value in the eye of the law', and does not include any sentimental motives. |
| Chappell v Nestlé Co. Ltd (1960) | Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate |
| Fry v Lane (1880) | Although consideration need not be adequate, the contract may still be set aside if the overall bargain is unconscionable. |
| White v Bluett (1853) | Consideration cannot involve a promise to give up a right which is not possessed. |
| Hamer v Sidway (1891) | The mere abstention from permissible legal conduct is sufficient consideration to make a promise based on that forbearance a valid contract. |
| The Atlantic Baron [1979] | It is possible to demonstrate that the promisee has gone beyond the scope of the original contractual duty and has thereby provided an additional benefit and/or incurred additional detriment. |
| Wade v Simeon (1846) | A promise to enforce a claim known to be invalid does not equal consideration. |
| Cook v Wright (1861) | A promise to give up a claim that you have a reasonable belief in and is valid and non frivolous is good consideration for a contract. |
| Roscorla v Thomas (1842); Re McArdle (1951) | Consideration must not be past |
| Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) | Past consideration may be valid if it has been proceeded by a request. |
| Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) | Consideration must move from the promisee. |
| Stilk v Myrick (1809) | Performance of an existing contractual duty does not normally constitute consideration. |
| Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) | Performance that exceeds the pre-existing contractual duty may amount to consideration. |
| Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] | If the contractors are obtaining a practical benefit for performing an existing duty in exchange for additional payment, this constitutes consideration. |
| Collins v Godefroy (1831); Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v Glamorgan Ltd [1925] | Performance of a pre-existing duty imposed by law does not amount to consideration. |
| Williams v Williams [1957] | Possible that performance of an existing duty may be good consideration, as long as the contract is not contrary to public policy (?) |
| Ward v Byham [1956] | Performance exceeding a pre-existing duty imposed by law may amount to consideration. |
| Shadwell v Shadwell (1860); Scotson v Pegg (1861) | Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party may be consideration for a separate promise. |
| New Zealand Shipping Co v Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon) [1975] | Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party may be consideration for a separate promise. |
| Pinnel's Case (1602) | A promise to perform only part of a duty cannot be consideration. |
| Foakes v Beer (1884) | Part payment of an existing debt does not amount to consideration. |
| De la Bere v Pearson [1908] | Indication that the notion of consideration may not fit so well with the idea of the bargain - may be more appropriate to use the law of negligence (?) (Newspaper offering financial advice to readers - advice was negligent, resulting in C's losing money) |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.