Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel. The Need for Consideration. Nearly always required Must move from the promisee Evaluative method must vary from case to case Ask – what broken promise am I complaining about and ask what was the price paid for that promise?. Early Threat.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Need for Consideration • Nearly always required • Must move from the promisee • Evaluative method must vary from case to case • Ask – what broken promise am I complaining about and ask what was the price paid for that promise?
Early Threat • Hawkes v Saunders (1782) • Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)
Attempts at Definition • Thomas v Thomas (1842) • Something of value in the eyes of the law • Moving from the P • Some detriment to P or benefit to D • Created at least two problems • One: language of benefit and detriment unhelpful sometimes • Hamer v Sidaway (1891) • Two: executory consideration • Leads to • Dunlop v Selfridge (1915)
Consideration Must Move From Promisee • McCoubray v Thompson (1868) • McEvoy v Belfast Banking (1935)
Consideration Need Not be Adequate • Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
Consideration Must be Sufficient • General Law • Re Wilson (1933) • O’Neill v Murphy (1936) • White v Bluett (1853) • Hamer v Sidaway (1891)
What is Not Sufficent • Past Consideration is Not Sufficient • Roscorla v Thomas (1842) • Re McArdle (1951) • Law Society v O’Malley (1999) • The Implied Promise Cases • Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) • Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)
Pre-Existing Obligations • Imposed By Law • Collins v Godefroy (1831) • England v Davidson (1840) • Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (1925) • McKerring v Minister for Agriculture (1989) • Ward v Byham (1956) • Williams v Williams (1957) • McHugh v Kildare County Council (2006)
Pre-Existing Contractual Duty • Generally • Stily v Myrick (1809) • Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (1990) • Debts? • Pinnels Case (1602) • P sued D for the sum of £8 10s. The defence was based on the fact that the defendant had, at the plaintiff's request, tendered £5-2s-6d before the debt was due, which the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. • "payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum: but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. in satisfaction is good ... [as] more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money." • Foakes v Beer (1884) • Re Select Move (1995) • Re C a Debtor (1996)
Settlements and Compromises? • Foskett, Law and Practice of Compromise • Normal Rules Apply • What is the consideration? • Settle and give more time to pay the debt? Mapes v Sidney (1624) • Duty Owed to Third Party? • The Eurymedon (1975)
Estoppel • Origins • Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) • Central London Properties v High Trees (1947)
Elements • Cannot be Used as a Sword • Coombe v Coombe (1951) • Clear and Unequivocal Promise • Folens v Minister for Education (1984) • Bennett Construction v Greene (2004)
Backdrop of Legal Relations • Revenue Commissioners v Moroney (1972) • Reliance and Detriment • Coombe • Ajayi v AT Briscoe (1964) • Gillett v Holt (2000) • Daly v Minister for Marine (2001)