Consideration

chloe.crismani
Mind Map by , created almost 6 years ago

University Contract Law Mind Map on Consideration, created by chloe.crismani on 01/19/2014.

44
1
0
Tags
chloe.crismani
Created by chloe.crismani almost 6 years ago
CONTRACT LAW
remy.richman
Exemption clauses
pavlina.hunt
Misrepresentation
pavlina.hunt
Themes in Pride and Prejudice
laura_botia
el centro comercial
Nicholas Guardad
Contract Law
Tim Mitchell
Contract Law Key Terms
jdavisbyhs
Consideration & Promissory Estoppel
El-Ruth Harmony
GCSE law Consumer Contract B144 WHOLE UNIT
Angela Dickinson
Consideration
Chantal Briancon
Consideration
1 Exchange of promises
1.1 A contract is only legally enforceable if it contains 'consideration'
1.1.1 Exchange of values: essentially it refers to what one party is giving or promising, in exchange for what is being given or promised from the other side.
2 Benefit and Detriment
2.1 Consideration requires benefit and detriment. CURRIE V MISA
2.1.1 What is provided by way of consideration should be a benefit to the person receiving it, or a detriment to the person giving it.
2.1.1.1 Benefit to one party, or detriment to the other will be enough.
3 Consideration is required in 2 circumstances:
3.1 1. Forming a contract
3.2 2. Where the parties seek to vary or alter an existing contact.
4 Consideration principles:
4.1 1. Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate
4.1.1 'Sufficient' - Whether what is being offered is recognised as sufficient in law.
4.1.2 'Adequate' - Something which is of equal value to the thing given in exchange.
4.2 2.Consideration must move from the promisee (the recipient).
4.3 3. Consideration may be executory or exectued, but not past.
4.3.1 Consideration is said to be 'executory' when it is present in an exchange of promises and 'executed' when it is a promise in return of an act.
5 SHADWELL V SHADWELL
5.1 Uncle promised P a money if he married E (already in engaged). P married, D refused to pay.
5.1.1 HELD: Uncle derived a benefit from P's change of status. Consideration found.
6 TWEDDLE V ATKINSON
6.1 2 Prospective fathers in laws promised each other to give money to groom when he was married. One father-in-law refused and on death the groom sued his estate.
6.1.1 HELD: groom could not sue, as he gave nothing for the promise.
7 CHAPPELL V NESTLE
7.1 Customers sent in wrappers for tokens.
7.1.1 HELD: Sending in wrappers increased sale of chocolate. Consideration found.

Media attachments