5399077
Descripción
Fichas por El-Ruth Harmony, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por El-Ruth Harmony
hace más de 8 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| What is the definition of consideration? | benefit accrued and loss suffered (Curie v Misa) |
| What are the three rules of consideration? | 1. Consideration must move past the promise 2. Consideration must not be past 3. Consideration must be sufficient and need not be adequate |
| Tweddle v Atkinson | Consideration must move past the promisee. (Even though Tweddle was named in the agreement, he had not given any consideration for the agreement) |
| What are the three types of consideration? | - Executory - Executed - Past |
| What is executory consideration? | When promises are exchanged to perform acts in the future. (for example, paying on delivery) |
| What is executed consideration? | Where one party performs an act in order to fulfil a promise made my another (for example, 'reward' contracts) |
| Re McArdle | Past consideration (son's wife paid for repairs, mother promised to pay her back, promise was not enforceable) |
| Which case gives the exception to the general rule that consideration must not be past? | Lampleigh v Braightwaite |
| Thomas v Thomas | Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. (The payment of a 'peppercorn' rent was sufficient) |
| What are the three things that consideration must be to be sufficient? | - Real - Tangible - Valuable |
| White v Bluett | The promise not to complain is insufficiently tangible to amount to good consideration |
| Chappell v Nestle | Wrappers were held to be part of the consideration, even though they were thrown away when received. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper. |
| Which two cases involve performance of an existing duty? | - Collins v Godefroy - Stilk v Myrick |
| Collins v Godefroy | Promise to pay was unenforceable because the police already had a legal duty to act. |
| Stilk v Myrick | No consideration by the sailors in return for the captain's promise |
| What are the 3 exceptions to the rule that performance of an existing duty is not good consideration? | - where a public duty is exceeded - where a contractual duty is exceeded - where there is an existing contractual duty owed to a third party - where the rule in Williams v Roffey applies |
| Which case states that performance of an existing duty is good consideration when they are exceeding an existing public duty? | Glass Brook Bros v Glamorgan County Council |
| What case states that performance of an existing duty is good consideration when they are exceeding an existing contractual duty? | Hartley v Ponsonby |
| Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council? | - Miners asked for extra protection from police and promised to pay then refused to pay after they received protection - Promise was enforceable, the police had exceeded their existing public duty. |
| Hartley v Ponsonby | - Similar to Stilk v Myrick (9 out of 11 remained), this case only 19 out of 36 remained. The voyage was more dangerous. - By the sailors sailing in more dangerous conditions, they exceeded their existing contractual duty. |
| Lampleigh v Braithwaite | - Exception to the past consideration rule - Braithwaite killed another man and asked Lampleigh to secure a pardon for £100 |
| What case states that performance of an existing duty is good consideration when they are exceeding an existing contractual duty owed to a third party? | Scotson v Pegg |
| What is the most recent 'refinement and limitation' to the rule in Stilk v Myrick?? | Williams v Roffey Bros |
| Scotson v Pegg | - Performance of an existing duty owed to a third party - Delivery of coal was good consideration to be paid |
| Which case provides us with the basic common law rule relating to part payment of a debt? | Pinnel's Case |
| Which case provides us with the basic common law rule relating to part payment of debt? | Pinnel's Case |
| Which case shows the general rule on part payment of a debt operating harshly? | Foakes v Beer |
| Pinnel's Case | - Part payment of a debt - Payment payment of the whole sum at a later day. |
| 3 situations where a payment of a less sum may discharge the full debt? | - If payment is made before it is due (Pinnel's case) - If payment is made by different means - If payment is in a different place to that originally specified |
| Foakes v Beer | - Rule in Pinnel's Case operating harshly - Beer tried to force Foakes to pay interest, even though Foakes relied on his promise to not take any further action. - Foakes was forced to pay |
| Why did promissory estoppel develop? | - Because of the harshness of common law (Foakes v Beer) - It is an equitable doctrine |
| Promissory Estoppel (definition) | Making a promise binding without consideration |
| Central London Property Trust v High Trees | - During the war - Central London Property was allowed to get the full rental payments for 1945 onwards but the judges said that if they tried to claim the full rent from 1940, they will be estopped from doing so |
| What are the requirements that promissory estoppel is subject to? | - There must be a clear or unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to affect legal relationship between the parties and which indicated that the promisor will not insist upon his strict legal rights against the promisee in relation to the promise |
| Can promissory estoppel be used as a defence? | - No - 'equity is a shield, not a sword' - It does not create new rights |
| Combe v Combe | - Husband made promise to his wife. - Wife brought an action to enforce the promise invoking promissory estoppel. - He action failed. The wife sought to use promissory estoppel as sword and not a shield. |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.