Consideration

Definition Currie v Misa (1875) ‘Benefit,detriment’ analysis – either some right, interest, profit, benefit
(executed) accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss of responsibility
given, suffered or undertaken by another party.
Dunlop pneumatic Act or forbearance of one party or the promise thereof is the price for which
(1915), F. Pollock (1876) the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus given for value is
[executed & executory] enforceable. Described by Cheshire,Fifoot,Furmston.
1.Past Re McArdle (1951) CA Maxim:[brothers,house,refurnish]Past consideration is not a good
consideration consideration
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long Exception: 1.request of the promisor (Lampleigh v Barthwait)+ 2.clear/implied
(1980)PC understanding between the parties about payment+ 3.content of the promise
legally (lack of illegality+ITCLR) enforceable had it been requested in advanced.
2.Move from Bolton v Madden (1873) Maxim: consideration must move from promisee but not necessarily to
promisee to promisor by conferring a benefit on a 3rd party.
promisor/3rd party
3.Must be sufficient Chappell v Nestle (1960) Maxim:[gramophone,3wrappers] party can stipulates for what consideration
need not be HL she chooses. Even trivial act will do.
adequate White v Bluett (1853) [son- not to complain, father- not to sue for debt] must have some economic
value.
Hamer v Sidway (1891) [uncle,nephew,liquor] restricting own lawful freedom of action is good
US consideration.
a)Forbearance to Pitt v PHH Asset (1994) Maxim: Forbearance to sue may amount to good consideration.
sue Wade v Simeon (1846) Giving up a claim that is bad is no good consideration.
Cook v Wright (1861) Undaertaking to give up a claim that claimant wrongly but in good faith is to
be founded with good consideration.
Simantob v Shavleyan Applied Cook. Reasoning- public policy (freedom of bargain).
(2019) CA
b)Duty imposed by Collins v Godfrey (1831) Maxim: [subpoena,6 Guineas] No consideration, already legally obliged to
law attend the trial.
Glasbrook Bros v GCC [colliery,billet,petrolling] Doing more than stipulated job can amount to good
(1925) consideration. Added in the Police Act 1996.
s.25 of Police Act 1996 At the request, special police services can be subject to the payment
determined by that body.
Leeds United FC (2012) Not entitled for policing and crowd control on a land not owned, leased or
directly controlled by the club. Cited Reading Festival.
Reading Festival Limited ‘Special police service’- a) the police considered beyond necessary to meet
(2006) their stipulated duty or b) if not provided ,the asker had to manage from
own/other resources.
Ward v Byham (1956) [unmarried mother,2 conditions,married,£1/week stopped] Did more than her
statutory duty (mother of an illegitimate child is bound to maintain it), not to
‘look after it well’ nor to ‘make it happy’.
c) Contractual duty Stilk v Myrick (1809) Maxim: [voyage,11 crew,2 left] No good consideration. Espinasse: policy
owed to promisor matter, to prevent extortion. Campbell: Lack of consideration from 9 sailors.
Hartley v Ponsonby [from 36 to 4/5 crew members] Situation changed drastically could amount to
(1857) good consideration.
William v Roffey Bros [28 flats,carpenter,underpaid] ‘Practical Benefit’ Glidewell LJ- a) a contract as
(1991) to goods/services, b) the promisor has a reason to doubt that promisee won’t
complete, c) a promise for additional payment, d) thus promisor got a benefit
or avoided any disbenefit, e) there must be no duress or fraud from promisee,
f) all this can amount a good consideration. Adam Opel (2007)- single
‘integrated principle’. The existence of consideration should be determined
first.
 Abacha (2003) Stilk v Myrick won’t apply where parties’s intention was to rescind the first
contract (mutual release), the rule may apply where the parties intended not
to rescind but to make variation to the first contract.

d) Obligation owed Shadwell v Shadwell [engagement,uncle,£150/annum if marry] An existing obligation owed to a 3 rd

to 3rd party (1860) party which was later performed / promised to another promisor can constitute
good consideration.
e) Part payment of Pinnel’s case (1602)/ Maxim: payment of a lesser sum can’t satisfy the whole. Exceptions in Pinnel’s-
debt Foakes v Beer (1884) a)if debitor has given consideration through a gift, or b)If part payment was made
on the request of creditor at an early date or other place
Re Selectmove Ltd (1995) Practical benefit doctrine won’t apply to payment of a debt as Roffey was about
contract for good and services. Foakes was followed.
MWB v Rock ad (2016) SC a)An anti-oral variation clause in a written contract won’t preclude any variation
(public policy-freedom of agreement), b)enough consideration as lisensor would
recover arrears and his property won’t be left empty
Promissory Hughes v Metropolitan First established.
estoppel Railway (1877)
High Trees (1947) [99 yrs lease,war,promis to take half of 2500,entire rent] 5 conditions of
promissory estoppel- a)a clear unequivocal promise as to future, b)promisee
relied upon it (dicta-showing detriment), c)inequitable for the promisor to go
back upon his promise, d)estoppel is a suspensory one, doesn’t extinguish
owner’s right (a reasonable notice-MWB), e)a shield not a sword /cause of
action(Combe v Combe).

Repayment by 3rd Welby v Drake/ Hirachand If accepted by creditor, repayment by a 3rd party is possible.
party
Group of creditor Wood v Robarts An arrangement with a group of creditor to accept a lesser sum will amount to a
satisfaction of the whole.