CONSIDERATION 1 EXCEPTION (CONSIDERATION NOT SUFFICIENT)

PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTY

19th Centruy terminology of benefits & detriments. ENGLAND v DAVID
Each party to the contract must suffer a loss or detriment in return for Factdict: - England, police, give evidence (public duty) = no reward
benefit. UNLESS….
CURRIE v MISA EXCEEDS OWN DUTY
GLASBROOK BROS v GLAMORGAN CC
TYPES OF CONSIDERATION Factdict: - Mobile police acted over their duty to Glasbrook to
( 1 ) EXECUTORY CONSIDERATION remain stationary at their coal mine.
- Acts to be done in the future PRACTICAL BENEFIT
( 2 ) EXECUTED CONSIDERATION WILLIAMS v ROFREY BROS
- Completed Acts Facts: - Rofrey got contracted to refurbish block of flats
- Rofrey subcontract carpenty work to Williams
- Williams in financial difficulties bcause price too low
CONDITIONS - Rofrey knew about Williams and if work not
( 1 ) CONSIDERATION MUST NOT BE PAST completed, Rofrey had to pay penalty
Act that has been performed = gratuitous - ∴ Rofrey pays additional money to William
∴ Promise made after act = not consideration Verdict: - There is benefit to Rofrey
- ∴ Valid consideration
RE MCARDLE PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY
Facts: - Mcardle's son did improvements to house
- then he got siblings to sign a document to share the costs STILK v MYRICK
Verdict: - No valid contract as act has been performed. Factdict: Captain no obligation to pay existing crew extra money to
Moral Obligations = not legal obligation sail back when 2 out of 11 sailors left ship.
EASTWOOD v KENYON UNLESS….
EXCEPTIONS: HARTLEY v PONSONBY
Factdict: Captain is obliged to pay existing crew extra money to act
PREVIOUS REQUEST above normal duty, sailing back, as 19 out of 36 crew left,
- Promisor request promisee to perform act then pay causing the ship to be seriously undermaned (dangerous).
- Agreement must be clearly understood by both EXCEPTION:
PAU ON v LAU YIU LONG PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING
BUSINESS SITUATION CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWNED TO THIRD
- In business context = trust exists PARTY
RE CASEY Promise to perform existing duty to 3rd party
Facts: - A & B owned patent, promised C 1/3 share if he run is good consideration
The company as manager for 2 years EURYMEDON
Verdict: - Valid consideration in the context of business
Factdict: - HL: Carriers got contract from both firm of
( 2 ) CONSIDERATION MUST START FROM PROMISEE stevedores and Consignees of the goods
Promisee must do things to satisfy consideration. to unload the ship = both amounts to
good consideration.
TWEDDLE v ATKINSON
Factdict: 'No stranger to consideration can take advantage of a contract, ACTS OF FOREBEARANCE
although made for his benefit.' A person has valid claim against another in contract or tort, but promise
( 3 ) CONSIDERATION MUST BE SUFFICIENT BUT NEED NOT not to enforce it, in return, for certain promise.
BE ADEQUATE ALLIANCE BANK v BROOM
Consideration must have some value Factdict: - Bank ask for securities from broom, in return, for not
Court will not care whether the value is equivalent or not suing Broom for the money own = good consideration.
MIDLAND BANK v GREEN
Factdict: - Husband conveyed an estate to wife at extremely low price

PAGE 1 PAGE 2

LATER REAFFIRM in:


CONSIDERATION 2
PART-PAYMENT
General Rule: - Creditor not bound by undertaking to accept part
payment in full settlement of debt
Debtor liable even when creditor agreed to release
him from liability
PINNEL
Facts: - Cole own Pinnel some money
- Pinnel requested for part-payment on an earlier date
- Pinnel then sued for the remaining sum
Verdict: - Part-payment = no consideration
EXCEPTIONS if Creditor…
Accepts part-pay on earlier date
Accepts chattel instead of cash
Accepts part-pay in different place
Pinnel's principles reiterated in:
FOAKES v BEER
Facts: - Dr. Foakes owed Julia Beer $ on a judgment.
- 2 parties entered into an agreement where if Foakes
pay Beer £500 at once + remainder in installments,
Mrs. Beer would forgive the interest on the debt.
- This is a suit for the interest brought by Beer against
Foakes, alleging that there was no consideration to
forgive the interest.
Verdict: CA held that Beer is entitled to recover the interest
Principle: - If one own people $, one is obliged to pay back
the $ + interest if possible.
RE SELECTMOVE
Facts: - Selectmove owed arrears of tax to Inland Revenue
Inland Revenue was able to put it into liquidation
Selectmove proposed to tax collector that it will pay
off the arrears at the rate of £1000 monthly
Inland Revenue commenced liquidation, but
Selectmove insist there was a contract
Verdict: - CA: No consideration + tax collect = no authority
- When you have duty to pay back $ you owned,
pratical benefit in WILLIAM v ROFREY does
not apply.
Facts: - Central London rent block of flats to High Trees
2nd World War, High Trees no tenant = No money to pay rent
Central London agreed to reduced rent by half
1945, War ended = occupancy rate returned to normal
Central London sued to recover the original rent in the last half of 1945
Verdict: - Lord Denning: -[OBITER DICTUM] Although no consideration but
under 'general equitable principle'
= Central London cannot recover
balance in war times.
- 5 CONDITIONS FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
( 1 ) CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT BY THE
PROMISOR THAT HIS STRICT LEGAL RIGHTS WILL
NOT BE ENFORCED
1 party must make a promise which is intended to be binding
THE SCAPTRADE
It can be implied by conduct
HUGHES v METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
( 2 ) PROMISEE MUST ACT IN RELIANCE ON PROMISE
Promisee must have changed his position to his detriment, aliter, it will
be put in a worse position if promise is revoke.
AJAYI v BRISCOE
( 3 ) INEQUITABLE FOR PROMISOR TO GO BACK ON HIS
PROMISE TO REVERT HIS STRICT LEGAL RIGHTS
Promisor can revert his promise upon giving reasonable notice, provided
it's not inequitable for him.
( 4 ) ONLY BE USED AS 'SHIELD' NOT 'SWORD'
Party who waived his rights will be estopped from denying that he
intened it to be binding
COMBE v COMBE
Factdicts: - When divorced, husband promised wife to pay her £100
yearly but wife only sue husband 7 yrs later for not paying
( 5 ) SUSPENSORY IN EFFECT
- CENTRAL LONDON PROPERTY v HIGH TREES

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
General Rule: "Equitable Remedy" to make promise binding in
absence of consideration.
HUGHES v METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
Facts: - Lease says tenant must repair the premises, and landlord must give
tenant 6 months notice to do so, aliter = forfeit lease
- Tenant starts to sell the lease to the landlord, stating that in the
meantime, it would not start the repairs
- Negotiations broke down and a few days later = landlord sought the
forfeitation of the lease
Verdict: - HL: - Landlord led one of the parties to believe that the strict legal
rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be
held in suspense = inequitable to enforce the original rights.
PAGE 3