Transcript Chapter 4: Consideration and Estoppel

Chapter 4: Consideration and
Estoppel
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
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?
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
Early Threat
• Hawkes v Saunders (1782)
• Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
Consideration Must Move From Promisee
• McCoubray v Thompson (1868)
• McEvoy v Belfast Banking (1935)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
Consideration Need Not be Adequate
• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
Consideration Must be Sufficient
• General Law
– Re Wilson (1933)
– O’Neill v Murphy (1936)
– White v Bluett (1853)
– Hamer v Sidaway (1891)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
• 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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
– 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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
Estoppel
• Origins
– Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
– Central London Properties v High Trees
(1947)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL
• 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)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL