1
Q
Golding’s Case
A
- In every action on the case, there are three things considerable:
- Consideration, promise, breach of promise
2
Q
Currie v Misa
A
- Requires parties to give something up, changing one of the rights you have
- Valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility give, suffered, or undertaken by another
3
Q
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridges
A
Consideration is the price of the promise bought
4
Q
Westlake v Adams
A
Law will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration
5
Q
Hobbes, The Leviathan
A
The value of things contracted is measured by the appetite of the contractors, value is what they are happy to give
6
Q
Chappell and Co v Nestle
A
- Contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses
- Peppercorn Theory: Peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if the promisee decides he doesn’t like pepper
- Something as nominal as a peppercorn can be consideration
7
Q
Eleanor v Benjamin Thomas Facts
A
- B and Sam Thomas were the executors of John Thomas’ will
- J wished that E should get the house
- Wish was granted, she had to pay 1 for annual rent
- B ejected E after S died, E sued
8
Q
Eleanor Issue
A
- Is motive of J to give E the house, sufficient consideration
- Was the house a gift
9
Q
Eleanor Holding
A
Appeal Dismissed, there was consideration
10
Q
Eleanor Reasoning
A
- Was not a gift because she paid rent -> this was her consideration
- Motive is not the same as consideration, Consideration has to have value in the eyes of the law (anything that’s a change in legal rights)
11
Q
Eleanor Ratio
A
- Motive is not sufficient consideration
- Consideration must have value in the eyes of the law
12
Q
Hamer v Sidway Facts
A
- Storey Sr promised Jr if he stopped drinking, smoking, swearing, gambling, until he was 21 he’d give him $5000
- Jr fulfilled obligation, told his uncle, uncle said he would give it once he knew Jr could take care of the money
- Sr died before he gave the money
13
Q
Hamer Issue
A
Was there a contract, even though there was a no consideration
14
Q
Hamer Holding
A
Appeal allowed, money given to the nephew
15
Q
Hamer Reasoning
A
- It does not matter that the acts were good for Jr, and it doesn’t help the uncle
- Jr had taken action to fulfill the contract by withholding from activities (alienation of his rights)
- This was consideration
16
Q
Hamer Ratio
A
- Giving up a freedom is sufficient consideration
- Benefit doesn’t have to apply to the parties in a contract
17
Q
White (Executor) v William Bluett Facts
A
- J Bluett was W’s father, didn’t give as much to W as the other kids in the area / friend group
- W complained to his father
- J promised W money to relieve him of a debt if he stopped complaining
18
Q
Bluett Issue
A
Was there a contract
19
Q
Bluett Holding
A
No contract between father and son
20
Q
Bluett Reasoning
A
- There was no contract because there was no consideration
- Son had no right to complain, it was his dad’s money he could do what he wanted with it
- Son was promising to be happy
- Promising to feel a certain way cannot be valid consideration - you have no right to be happy
21
Q
Bluett Ratio
A
Emotions cannot be valid consideration
- langille thinks the reasoning is flawed in this case
22
Q
Great Northern Railway v Witham Facts
A
- GN put a tender for a supply of iron
- Witham agreed to supply for 12 months at a fixed price
- Tender was accepted by Great Northern, he started supplying but then abruptly stopped -> likely because the iron price went up and they would have to take a loss
23
Q
Witham Issue
A
Was there a contract
24
Q
Witham Holding
A
Yes they should have kept supplying it, court read it as a unilateral contract
25
Witham Reasoning
- When an order is given, they ought to have supplied
- Placing an order is an offer, sending iron is the acceptance
26
Witham Ratio
For offeree all happens at once - acceptance, performance, consideration, to all unilateral contracts
27
Tobias v Dick and Eaton Company Facts
- T sued for breach
- T drew up the contract and coerced D to sign it which they did
- D’s conduct since confirmed the contract so they cannot repudiate
- T had a monopoly agreement in an area of Canada for grain machines
- D gives up the right to sell to anyone else
28
Tobias Issue
Was there a contract, has T actually given consideration
29
Tobias Holding
No contract dismissed with costs
30
Tobias Reasoning
- It’s one sided for T
- Court says unilateral contracts if you place an order, I will sell the machines, order to sell
- Court also read in a term that unilateral contract can be accepted multiple times
- It is an exclusive right to sell, not a promise to sell
- There is no consideration
31
Tobias Ratio
- Example of how they can use the bilateral / unilateral structures to find consideration
- Consideration has to be you giving something up that you already have
32
Wood v Lucy Lady Duff Gordon Facts
- Lady is a fashion influencer, her endorsement boosts sales
- Wood was hired to make this a profitable enterprise for her
- He would get exclusive rights to her name, and he would place her endorsements for her, and they’d split the profits 50/50
- It was a contract for a year
- She continued to do her endorsements, independent of Wood
- In retaliation he withheld her profits
33
Lady Duff Gordon Issue
Was there a contract
34
Lady Duff Gordon Holding
Judgment for plaintiff
35
Lady Duff Gordon Reasoning
- His promise to pay her half of all profits is enough to be consideration
- Plus his effort to market and work
- Do not need formalization, do not to be explicit about what the consideration is
