consideration

• what is consideration?


  exchange of value/benefit and detriment
• what are the 2 types of considerarion?

  executory (main type of consideration) = promise for promise

  executed (applies to unilateral contracts) = an act in return for a promise
• what is the key case to define consideration?

  Currie v Misra (benefit and detriment)
• what is the case example for executed consideration?

  carlill v carbolic smoke ball
• what are the 4 rules for consideration?

  S-sufficient but need not be adequate

  P-past consideration isn't good consideration

  E-existing duty isn't good consideration

  M-consideration must move from the promisee
• what is the meaning of rule 1? 


  real and some actual value is enough even if value is minimal
• what does rule 1 exclude? 


  promises of love and affection, gaming and betting etc; one sided promise of consideration is a gift, law won't enforce gifts unless made by deed
• as long as consideration has some value, it will be sufficient to support a contract


  Thomas v Thomas
• promising "not to complain" is not consideration, as there was no legal right to complain that is being given up = not real consideration 


  White v Bluett
• keeping a child happy is good consideration as it goes beyond legal duty as a parent 


  Ward v Byham
• must be real but does not have to be of equal value (e.g chocolate wrappers) 


  Chappelle v Nestle CO
• what is meant by rule 2?


  something that has already been done at the time of agreement (when promise comes after the act)
• past consideration is not good consideration, cannot form basis of valid contract


  Re McArdle
• past consideration is good if linked to earlier request with implied payment 


  Lampleigh v Braithwaite
• payment is expected where reward is in mind of the party


  Re Casey's Patent
• what is meant by rule 3? 


  doing something you already have a legal duty to do is not good consideration
• doing what you are already contracted to do is not consideration for a new promise


  Stilk v Myrick
• if you do something extra to what you are already contracted to do then this will be good consideration to support a new promise


  Hartley v Ponsonby
• no contract if you are already required by law to act; had public duty to do so


  Collins v Godefroy
• if you provide extra to your existing public duty, this will be good consideration 


  Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council (Glassbrook v GCC)
• where party gains benefit or avoids detriment by making a promise to pay more for an existing duty, this is good consideration


  Williams v Roffey
• duty owed to a third party us still regarded as good consideration 


  Shadwell v Shadwell
• what is meant by rule 4? 


  person providing consideration can sue but a 3rd party cannot enforce contract even if they are named in it
• 3rd party even if named in contract cannot sue; only person providing consideration can enforce contract


  Theddle v Atkinson