Consideration

• What is consideration?

  when something is given by one party in return for something else from the other party
• What do parties recieve?

  One party recieves a benefit and the other a detriment.
• Rules of consideration:

  Consideration cannot come from an existing duty

  Consideration must be sufficient

  Consideration must be tangible or identifiable

  Consideration cannot be past
• If a party does something but was already recquired to do it, this is not consideration.
• They are already obliged to do it by law and are not giving anything extra.
• Under what does duty exist?

  contract or law
• In Stilk v Myrick, across 8 sailors the work of 2 others was not classed as anything more than what was in the contract. No extra consideration was given.
• In Hartley v Ponsonby, across 8 sailors the work of 17 other more was calssed as going beyond their contractual duty. Extra consideration was given.
• In Williams v Roffey, where a practical benefit is gained for performing an existing contractual duty is extra consideration.
• What cases fall under contract duty?

  Stilk v Myrick, Hartley v Ponsonby and Williams v Roffey
• In Collins v Godefroy as he was already obliged to give evidence in court there was not extra consideration given.
• In Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC, providing a large police patrol during mining strikes was beyond their legal duty so extra consideration was given.
• In Ward v Byham, the £1 maintanence to keep the child well look after and happy was extra as she was not only maintaining the child but also keeping it well looked after and happy.
• What cases fall under law?

  Collins v Godefroy, Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC, Ward v Byham
• Consideration must be sufficient means a party must provide something of recognisable value, however trivial. It does not have to be of an adequate amount.
• In Thomas v Thomas, £1 rent per year was not adequate. It was sufficient consideration as it was of some recognisable value.
• Chappell v Nestle, choclate wrappers were clearly not of an adequate value, but were suffiecient consideration.
• Consideration must be tangible or identifiable means it cannot be something vague. It needs to be tangible or identifiable.
• In White v Bluett, a promise to stop complaining in exchange for money was too vague. It could not be identified or enforced.
• What case shows consideration must be tangible or identifiable?

  White v Bluett
• consideration cannot be past means if a party has already done something this is not consideration as it was not done at the point of the contract being formed.
• In Roscorla v Thomas, the promise of the horse being "sound and free from vice" came after the sale.
• In Re McArdle, the decorating took place before the agreement to pay money for it. It was past consideration.
• What case refers to a horse?

  Roscorla v Thomas
• What case refers to decorating?

  Re Mcardle
• Exemption to the rule of past consideration:

  Past consideration is valid where it was expected or implied all along.
• Lampleigh v Braithwaite, after being pardoned, he promised to pay £100 for it. This was consideration as payment was expected all along. The later promise of £100 simply confirmed the precise amount.
• In Re Casey's Patents, the statement about shares came after the work but was simply securing a payment that was expected all along.
• What case it was pardoned?

  Lampleigh v Braithwaite
• What case was the statement about shares?

  Re Casey's Patents
• In what case 8 sailors had to do the work of other 2?

  Stilk v Myrick
• In what case 8 sailors had to do the work of other 17?

  Hartley v Ponsonby
• In what case was there a practical benefit?

  Williams v Roffey
• In what case was P expected to give evidence in court?

  Collins v Godefroy
• In what case did they provide large police patrol?

  Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
• In what case was there £1 maintenance?

  Ward v Byham
• In what case was there £1 per yer rent?

  Thomas v Thomas
• In what case was there involved chocolate wrappers?

  Chappell v Nestle
• In what case was there a promise to stop complaining?

  White v Bluett