Consideration

Question 1

Stilk v Myrick [1809]

sharing deserters’ pay

Answer 1

• A promise to pay more for the performance of an existing contractual obligation is not binding for want of consideration
• There was no consideration for the promise to give extra pay for those who remained on the ship

Question 2

Hartley v Ponsonby [1857]

the desertion of 17 out of 36 crew, leaving only four or five able seamen on the unseaworthy ship caught in storm

Answer 2

The crew were entitled to the extra payment promised on the grounds that either they had gone beyond their existing contractual duty or that the voyage had become too dangerous frustrating the original contract and leaving the crew free to negotiate a new contract
- by agreeing to do the work, the plaintiff supplied fresh consideration.
- Therefore, the contract was valid

Contrast to Stilk v Myrick

Question 3

Currie v Misa [1875]

‘a valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other

Answer 3

• case involving a failed bank and international investment known as bills of exchange
• provided the classic definition of consideration -> Lush J

Question 4

Shadwell v Shadwell [1860]

uncle promised gift ‘provided the barrister nephew married his fiancée’

Answer 4

• performance of the marriage contract was consideration, even though the contract was made with a third party to the agreement
• the marriage was good consideration
• An obligation already owed to a third-party can be used as consideration

Question 5

Eastwood v Kenyon [1840]

a young girl’s guardian raised a loan to educate her and improve her marriage prospects

Answer 5

• general rule that past performance is not good consideration and therefore a promise to pay for past performance is gratuitous

Question 6

Pinnel’s case [1602]

Sir Edward Coke - payment cannot discharge the whole debt but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe…in satisfaction is good

Answer 6

Cole argued that he had offered, at Pinnel’s request, an amount of the sum, 2 days before the debt was due, and Pinnel had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt

Question 7

Foakes v Beer [1884]

Lord Blackburn - a promise to accept less than is owed to you

Answer 7

• A promise to accept less than one is entitled to under a pre-existing contract is not binding for want of consideration