1 / 14

Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel

Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel. The Need for Consideration. Nearly always required Must move from the promisee Evaluative method must vary from case to case Ask – what broken promise am I complaining about and ask what was the price paid for that promise?. Early Threat.

ulric-boyd
Download Presentation

Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel

  2. The Need for Consideration • Nearly always required • Must move from the promisee • Evaluative method must vary from case to case • Ask – what broken promise am I complaining about and ask what was the price paid for that promise?

  3. Early Threat • Hawkes v Saunders (1782) • Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)

  4. Attempts at Definition • Thomas v Thomas (1842) • Something of value in the eyes of the law • Moving from the P • Some detriment to P or benefit to D • Created at least two problems • One: language of benefit and detriment unhelpful sometimes • Hamer v Sidaway (1891) • Two: executory consideration • Leads to • Dunlop v Selfridge (1915)

  5. Consideration Must Move From Promisee • McCoubray v Thompson (1868) • McEvoy v Belfast Banking (1935)

  6. Consideration Need Not be Adequate • Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd

  7. Consideration Must be Sufficient • General Law • Re Wilson (1933) • O’Neill v Murphy (1936) • White v Bluett (1853) • Hamer v Sidaway (1891)

  8. What is Not Sufficent • Past Consideration is Not Sufficient • Roscorla v Thomas (1842) • Re McArdle (1951) • Law Society v O’Malley (1999) • The Implied Promise Cases • Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) • Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)

  9. Pre-Existing Obligations • Imposed By Law • Collins v Godefroy (1831) • England v Davidson (1840) • Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (1925) • McKerring v Minister for Agriculture (1989) • Ward v Byham (1956) • Williams v Williams (1957) • McHugh v Kildare County Council (2006)

  10. Pre-Existing Contractual Duty • Generally • Stily v Myrick (1809) • Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (1990) • Debts? • Pinnels Case (1602) • P sued D for the sum of £8 10s. The defence was based on the fact that the defendant had, at the plaintiff's request, tendered £5-2s-6d before the debt was due, which the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. • "payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum: but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. in satisfaction is good ... [as] more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money." • Foakes v Beer (1884) • Re Select Move (1995) • Re C a Debtor (1996)

  11. Settlements and Compromises? • Foskett, Law and Practice of Compromise • Normal Rules Apply • What is the consideration? • Settle and give more time to pay the debt? Mapes v Sidney (1624) • Duty Owed to Third Party? • The Eurymedon (1975)

  12. Estoppel • Origins • Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) • Central London Properties v High Trees (1947)

  13. Elements • Cannot be Used as a Sword • Coombe v Coombe (1951) • Clear and Unequivocal Promise • Folens v Minister for Education (1984) • Bennett Construction v Greene (2004)

  14. Backdrop of Legal Relations • Revenue Commissioners v Moroney (1972) • Reliance and Detriment • Coombe • Ajayi v AT Briscoe (1964) • Gillett v Holt (2000) • Daly v Minister for Marine (2001)

More Related