458398
| Question | Answer |
| What is the basic definition of consideration? | A promise for a promise. To make a valid contract - there must be ‘consideration’, i.e. the ‘price’ for which the other party’s promise or act is ‘bought’. |
| What is the more complex definition of consideration? (What must there be in a consideration) | Currie v Misa “consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in 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” |
| Does consideration need to adequate? | Though it must be of some value, consideration need not be equivalent to the other party’s act or promise. Basically, as long as there is some consideration, it is adequate, no matter how small it is as seen Chappell v Nestle |
| Does consideration need to be sufficient? | Yes consideration must be sufficient though not adequate i.e. intangible consideration will not be accepted by the courts as seen in White v Bluett |
| Is past consideration, good consideration? | As seen in Roscorla v Thomas past consideration is not good consideration i.e. Something done in the past is no consideration for a promise made today |
| Is Performance of an existing contractual duty good consideration for a fresh promise? | Performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration for a fresh promise as seen in Stilk v Myrick however, in Williams v Roffey it was |
| Is the Performance of a duty owed to a third party good consideration? | Performance of a duty owed to a third party has been recognised as good consideration as seen in Scotson v Pegg |
| Is part payment of a debt, sufficient consideration? | Pinnel case: Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the whole debt |
| Are there any exceptions to the rule set out in Pinnel's case? | -Debt paid earlier -At a different place -Or an altered payment method -Where payment of a lesser sum by a third party is accepted by the creditor in full satisfaction of the debt – Hirachand Punamchand v Temple -Promissory estoppel -Uniquidated damages i.e. when the amount is unknown |
| What is promissory estoppel? | It's a doctorine which operates as aexception to the rule in Pinnel's case and provides that a promisor would be stopped from going back on a promise not to sue for the balance of the whole debt when a part payment has been accepted as confirmed in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House |
| 1. What is the scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel? | 1. It is a shield, not a sword i.e. you can use it as a defence when sued, but you cannot use it to bring an action for breach of contract as seen in Combe v Combe |
| 2. What is the scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel? | 2. There must be reliance by the debtor on the creditor’s promise. Though this does not mean that the debtor must have relied to his detriment, nor does he need to have acted differently. |
| 3. What is the scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel? | 3. There must be inequity. The debtor will obtain no relief if no inequity is involved by the creditor going back on his word as seen in Collier v P & MJ Wright |
| 4. What is the scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel? | 4. The doctrine is suspensive not extensive, The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not discharge the debtor forever; it only suspends the duty to pay. Thus, if the creditor gives notice that he wants full payment, or the conditions which gave rise to the promise cease to exist, the duty to pay revives. This is seen in Tool Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co |
| What are the criticisms of consideration? | a) Internally inconsistent: what is the relationship between consideration and estoppel? Does the remedy in estoppel cases seek to protect the claimant’s expectation interest in order for the reliance interest to be fully protected? See Elliot & Quinn p.108. b) Random in its operation C) Unnecessary ( Lord Goff) : |
| What can consideration be replaced with? | 1. Requirement of form: no consideration in Principles of European Contract Law 2. Intention to create legal relations 3. Reliance: definition linked to estoppel |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.