ELEMENT 4: CONSIDERATION

Question 1

Foakes v Beer

Answer 1

• Dr foakes owed Mr Beer 2090 pounds
  -after court, Dr foakes decided to pay in instalment
• later Mr Beer decided to ask for interest
• court ruled in favour of Mr Beer as paying in by small intervals cannot satisfy the whole debt rather than giving paying the exact sum immediately

Question 2

D and C builders ltd v Rees

Answer 2

• Builders were owed 482 pounds
• they later were paid 300 pounds which they reluctantly accept
• they can sue for the balance

Question 3

Central London Property v High Trees House

Answer 3

• an agreement made during world war 2 says that tenants can pay half of the rent
• after 2 years, the owner wants to claim back the rent owed the last 2 years
  -court ruled that owner could not claimed payment as it was estopped from going back on their promise

(Promissory Estoppel)

Question 4

Combe v Combe

Answer 4

• ex wife wanted to claim 2 pound a week promise from husband
• court denied
• promissory estoppel can only be used as defence, not action

Question 5

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 5

• 2 people from an 11 man ship abandoned the ship
• an offer was made if they the sailors can sail back safely
• was considered not a consideration
• it was their contractual duty to do so, not valid consideration

Question 6

Hartley v Ponsoby

Answer 6

• promise to pay more
• crew was down from 36-19 members
• ## excessive due to how dangerous it is

Question 7

Pao on v Lau Yiu Long

Answer 7

• Plaintiff owned shares in a building that defendant wanted
• Defendant was part of a public company, so Plaintiff decided to sell share in private company
• in exchange, the Plaintiff would get shares in Public Company
• fearing public company’s share will drop, Plaintiff and defendant agreed that P won’t sale shares for a while
• Plaintiff fearing that they would be harmed by this, suggested that Plaintiff will be compensate from any harm (loss in shares) and benefits (rise of shares)
• Defendant agreed as to not delay contract
• Share value did drop and Plaintiff sought out the compensation contract.
• Defendant refused
• there was consideration because Plaintiff was protecting Defendant’s company

Question 8

Williams v Rofferey Bros and Nicholls Contractors Ltd

Answer 8

-Defendant subcontracted (gave job) to Claimant for carpentry for 20 000
- Claimant had financial issues
- Defendant offered to pay extra 10 300 if finished on time so that doesn’t get penalty fees
- claimant finished on time but defendant refuses to pay
- Defendant didn’t want to pay 10 300 but had to due to the fact that Defendant didn’t have to pay penalty fees (practical benefit)

Question 9

Collins v Godefroy

Answer 9

• promise to give policeman if he attended up to court
• not consideration as it is an existing public duty

Question 10

Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan

Answer 10

• Police who provided extra protection was considered consideration
• this can only happen if it is excessive

Question 11

Shaklin v Pier Detel Products

Answer 11

• the owners of piers succeeded in suing the manufacturer
• due to the paint job not being water resistant

Question 12

Tweedle v Atkinson

Answer 12

• two fathers had agreed to pay the couple a sum of money
• the wife died
• the husband sued
• it was dismissed because he was not part of party

Question 13

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 13

• the landlord gave a widow rent for 1 pound for a year
• charged by executors considered good consideration
• must have economic value, regardless good or bad

Question 14

White v Bluet

Answer 14

• the father of Bluett had lent Bluett a sum of money and died before Bluett could repay him
• White was the one who handle father of Bluett’s case
• White sued Bluett for outstanding payment
• Bluett said that the father would waive the son’s debt if he agreed to the father’s plan of distributing estate
• not complaining agains the distribution of estate for the family to waive debt was not a consideration

Question 15

Chapple v Nestle

Answer 15

Nestle offered a music record normal costing 6s 6d for 1s 6d plus three chocolate bar wrappers held to be good consideration

Question 16

RE Mcardle

Answer 16

the claim made by a son and his wife over repairs done while they live in the house.
- held past consideration and not payable

Question 17

Lampleigh v Braithwale

Answer 17

• Braithwale was accused of killing
• Braithwale had asked Lampleigh to get a king’s pardon and he did
• Braithwale offered to pay 100 pound but never did
• later promise make it enforcable
  (past consideration can be enforced if there is request to carry out the act.