Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Rules for consideration
|
- Must not be past
- Must move from the promisee - Must be sufficient, not adequate. |
|
Dunlop v Selfridge
|
Held: Consideration is 'the price for which the promise of another is bought'. Consideration operates like privity, only parties to a contract may sue for the breach.
|
|
Eastwood v Kenyon
|
Held: Consideration must not be past.
|
|
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
|
Held: Exception to the rule in Eastwood v Kenyon if promise is made:
1. At request of promisor (Lampleigh v Braithwait) 2. When payment was understood to be due (Re Casey's Patents) 3. When the contract was enforceable, the issue notwithstanding. |
|
Tweddle v Atkinson
|
Held: Consideration must move from the promisee.
|
|
Chappell v Nestle
|
Facts: Chocolate bar wrappers were good consideration even if the company just threw them away. They represented increased sales.
Held: Consideration must be sufficient, not adequate. |
|
White v Bluett
|
Facts: A son complained continually about his father's distribution of his estate. Finally the father said he would forget the debt if he just stopped complaining.
Held: Promise too vague. Son wasn't giving up a legal right. |
|
Performance of existing obligation
|
Harris v Sheffield United - Special police services
Ward v Byham - Parental duty. Collins v Godefroy - Legal duty to be in court. |
|
Stilk v Myrick
|
Held: Performance of existing contractual obligation is not good consideration.
|
|
Hartley v Ponsonby
|
Held: Performance of an extra contractual obligation is good consideration.
|
|
Williams v Roffey
|
Held: Performance of existing contractual obligation will amount to good consideration if it amounts to some practical benefit.
Glidewell LJ's Criteria: 1. Promisee has a contract for supply of goods/services. 2. Promisor has a reason to doubt that the promisee will/will be able to complete. 3. Promisor promises extra to complete on time. 4. Promisor obtains 'practical benefit'/obviates disbenefit. 5. Promisor's promise not given as a result of duress. then... 6. Benefit to promisor is capable of being consideration. |
|
Opel v Mitrus
|
Held: Confirms Williams v Roffey.
|
|
Re Selectmove
|
Held: W+R cannot apply to a claim for a debt owed.
|
|
Scotson v Pegg
|
Held: Performance of an existing obligation to a third party can be good consideration.
|
|
Foakes v Beer
|
Held: Payment of a lesser sum does not discharge the obligation to pay the full amount.
|
|
Pinnel's case
|
- Exception to part payment rule in F v B if:
1. Different 'thing'. 2. Different 'place'. 3. Different 'time'. |
|
Welby v Drake
|
Held: If there is payment by a third party, you cannot sue for any remaining balance of the debt.
|
|
CLP Trust v High Trees House
|
Facts: Promissory Estoppel case giving a principle of justice and equality. Enforcing consistency.
Held: PE Criteria: 1. A clear and unequivocal promise to suspend existing contractual rights. (Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce). 2. An alteration of position in reliance (Ajayi v Briscoe). 3. Reliance need not be detrimental. (The Post Chaser). 4. Inequitable to go back on promise. (The Post Chaser). 5. Must be a shield, not a sword. (Coombe v Coombe). |
|
Effects of Promissory Estoppel
|
- Generally suspends rights. These rights will then be resumed on reasonable notice. You can claim for past periodic payments IE: Rent.
|
|
Barton v Armstrong
|
Held: Duress to the person. The duress need not be 'the' reason but merely 'one' of the reasons, as duress to the person is serious. No need for D to establish they would not have entered into the contract but for the threat.
|
|
The Siboen and The Sibotre
|
Held: The case for duress to goods in which the doctrine of economic duress was laid down.
|
|
DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo
|
Facts: There was an illegitimate threat but for a lawful end (insurance purposes) = good faith.
Held: For economic duress to succeed, there must be pressure resulting in: 1. A lack of practical choice for the victim. 2. Which is illegitimate, and 3. Is a significant cause inducing the claimant into the contract. |
|
Carillion v Felix
|
Held: No practical alternative but to submit.
Affirmed DSND v Subsea criteria. |
|
Illegitimate Pressure
|
Factors Considered:
1. Threats of breach of contract? 2. Pressure applied in good/bad faith? 3. Did the victim protest? 4. Did the victim affirm? |
|
CTN v Gallagher
|
Facts: Cigarette suppliers choked a companies line of credit over stolen cigarettes.
Held: Legitimate threat for unlawful end. When the company applied pressure, they believed they were acting in good faith. |
|
The Universe Sentinel
|
Facts: Got extra money paid into pension by going on strike.
Held: Legitimate threat for unlawful purpose. |
|
Alec Lobb v Total Oil
|
Facts: Got Total Oil to lease his company back to him.
Held: 'Hard Bargain' but no duress. |
|
The Atlantic Baron
|
Held: Failure to protest = contract affirmed.
|
|
Atlas Express
|
Held: Threatened breach of contract for illegitimate purpose. Better to take immediate action protesting against contract to avoid affirmation.
|
|
Huyton v Peter Cremer
|
Held: Onus on the claimant to prove the duress was a significant cause of them entering into the contract.
|