2

• Defintion


  Currie v Misa
• Consideration must be future or present

  Roscorla v. Thomas - promise was unenforceable, because it was made after the sale

  Re McArdle - the promise was given in return for something already done; it was therefore past consideration
• The requested performance exception

  Lampleigh v Braithwaite- the promise to pay extra after pardon was held

   
• THREE RULES GOVERNING CONSIDERATION

  1.    Consideration must move from the promisee

  Under common law, no. 3rd party who gain no benefit are legible

  Tweddle v Atkinson- son didn’t provide consideration 
• 1.    Consideration need not be adequate

  Thomas v Thomas - promise to pay £1/yr was sufficient consideration to make promise binding.

  Chappell v Nestle (1959).- the consideration was not only the money but that the 3 wrappers too thus added to the value

   
• 1.   Consideration must be sufficient


  -   Consideration must be of some ‘economic’ value- Thomas v Thomas and Chappell v Nestle above; and White v Bluett
• Consideration must be over existing legal obligations owed to the other contracting party

  Collins v Godefroy-  already legally obligated to carry duties 

  Harris v Sheffield United- was above he usual duty, entitled to more pay

   
• If one party demands more money

  Williams v Roffey cannot apply, nor does it apply to part-payment of debts

  - only doing what was originally contracted to do but D was receiving extra benefit
• Part payment of a debt is not satisfaction of the debt

  Foakes v Beer and pinnells case
• Exceptions to the general rule

  Payment of a lesser sum before the due day, at the creditor’s agreement, is valid consideration to enforce that agreement. Pinnel’s Case 
• 3) The doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel. - If a promise is relied on, the promisor can’t break it if it’s unfair

  Hughes v Metropolitan Railway

  However cannot be the main cause of legal action Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer
• 1.        Consideration must be sufficient and need not be adequate (Chappel v Nestle).

  2.        Consideration may be executory (future) or executed (present) but not past (Roscorla v Thomas).

  Except if the act is done at the request of the promisor (Re Casey’s Patents).
• 3.  Performing an existing contractual obligation owed to the other party will not constitute good consideration to enforce a subsequent promise, e.g. of extra payment by the other party (Stilk v Myrick cf. Hartley v Ponsonby).

  Unless there is an additional practical benefit for the other party (Williams v Roffey Bros).

  4.  Payment of a lesser sum on the due date in satisfaction of a greater sum cannot be satisfaction for the whole (Pinnell’s Case; D & C Builders v Rees).