Cerrar
Principal: consideration cannot be in the past, consideration is used to “buy into“ a contract. You can’t use an act or forbearance that has occurred in the past as consideration for the promise in the present. There is no valid ‘exchange’ if the act is already done. Give case authority.
Principal: if the prior act or service was provided at the request of the promisor, and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service, past consideration may be valid. You knew you needed to pay, all that needed to be decided was the ‘quantum’ - how much. Give case.
Pao On cont. 1
Pao On cont. 2
Pao On cont. 3
Pao On cont. 4
Pao On cont. 5
Pao On cont. 6
Principle: consideration must move from the promisor
PRINCIPLE: Consideration must be sufficient (possess some value), but does not need to be adequate (does not need to be fair / the market value. The courts are not interested in market value). Always quote this case when discussing this principle.
Principle: Consideration must have some value in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter how small that value is so long as a value can be identified.
Give an American authority that suggests giving up drinking, smoking, swearing and playing cards might be considered good consideration.
PRINCIPLE: you can't demand new, additional, consideration without offering new additional consideration yourself.
PRINCIPLE: in contrast to Stilk v Myrick (1809), New consideration can be demanded, where additional consideration offered is sufficiently great.
PRINCIPLE: Even when no consideration has been directly given by the promisee, there may be some benefit, extrinsic to the promisee, that can count as adequate consideration for the promisor.
Roffey Bros cont. 1
Roffey Bros cont. 2
Roffey Bros cont. 3
PRINICPLE: this judgement refines Williams V Roffey Bros [1991], finding that William V Roffey Bros only applies where extra payment has been provided in exchange for "factual" benefit, and does not apply to reduced payment in exchange for "factual" benefit.
Re Selectmove cont.
Principal: at first, this seemed to be an extension of Williams V Roffey Bros, on an alternative set of facts to Re Selectmove, that extended the principle of Williams V Roffey Bros to part payment of debts.
Principal: merely carrying out an obligation on the law, cannot be considered sufficient consideration for a contract. Going above and beyond an obligation under the law is required to qualify as consideration.
Priniciple: If an individual goes above and beyond their duties, as prescribed by public office, it may be regarded as consideration
Priniciple: If a public body goes above and beyond their duties, as prescribed by public office, it may be regarded as consideration
Priniciple: If a parent goes above and beyond their duties, as prescribed by public office, it may be regarded as consideration
Principle: existing obligations to a third-party can be sufficient consideration.
Principal: applying Scotson v Pegg (1861).
Which is the case that says you can substitute other goods for consideration, or pay at a different time?
Principal: part payment of a debt cannot be sufficient for completion of a contractual obligation.
Foakes v Beer Dispute
Foakes v Beer Dispute 2
Principle: the tender of a promissory note was a sufficient novelty to constitute consideration for the creditor’s promise to accept a lesser sum.
Principle: 1. Distinguished from Sibree v Tripp (1846), a cheque for a lessor amount cannot replace cash of a higher amount. 2. Promissory estoppel is an an equitable doctrine, therefore, you cannot use it if you act inequitably (in this case through intimidation).
Principle: If a third party pays off a debt, even if it’s for a lessor amount, once the creditor has accepted it, they cannot then sue the debtor for the remainder. Otherwise, they would committing fraud against the third party.
Authority for common law exception to promises to accept less - different place.
How do you answer a question concerning whether partial payment of debts is sufficient consideration?
Why was Promissory Estoppel created?
Principle: The case from which the principle for Promissory Estoppel derives. Although PE is not explicitly formulated in this case, it’s the case that Denning drew on to construct his principle.
Principle: The first case in which Denning clearly articulates promissory estoppel - a binding promise, despite the lack of consideration.
What are the five main requirements for Promissory Estoppel? With cases
Principle: the case that established Promissory Estoppel as a ‘shield and not a sword’.
Define Consideration with Case Law Quote
Principle: the standards of 'clear and certain’ as applied to contracts must also apply to promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel only varies an existing contract, and must be held to the same standard.
Principle: Promisee must have altered their conduct in reliance on the promise for estoppel to be valid.
Principle: Alteration of promisee’s conduct need not be detrimental. Of course.
Principle: It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on their promise. This basically takes the idea that ‘the promisee must have acted in reliance of the promise’ a step further, and says ‘the promisee must have changed their behaviour sufficiently so as to make it unfair to go back on the promise’.
Principle: Promissory Estoppel suspends but does not extinguish legal rights. It’s a fog, not a pair of scissors. When notice is given, or situations change, rights resume.
Read: O’Sullivan, J., 1996. In Defence of Foakes v Beer, Cambridge Law Journal. 55(2). pp.219–228
