lOMoARcPSD|9460583

Tutorial - Consideration (Contract Law)

Contract Law (Brickfields Asia College)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

1. What is the traditional definition of consideration that was expressed in the

case of Curie v Misa (1875)
In the case of Curie v Misa, Lush J stated that ‘a valuable consideration, in the
sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit
accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility,
given suffered or undertaken by the other.

2. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, with relevant

case laws, explain this principle.
Consideration need not be adequate but should at least be sufficient means
basically there should not be any dispute to whether the consideration was
enough so long as there was some consideration, it suffices. Example, if A
promises to sell B her expansive CD player for only €5, the consideration paid
by B clearly provides very little benefit to A, and amounts to only a small loss to
B, but nevertheless the transaction will be binding because some consideration
has been provided by both sides.
In the case of Thomas v Thomas, the court ruled that the widow’s promise to
pay £ 1 to keep up repairs was sufficient consideration to make the owner’s
promise binding.
In the case of Chappel v Nestle, the court ruled that even wrappers would form
part of a consideration and should be considered when calculating royalties that
should be paid for a record, eventhough they were not of real worth to the
defendants.

3. What is the difference between an executory consideration and an executed

consideration?
Consideration is often divided in two categories, executed and executory.
Executory consideration is where something is to be done in the future after the
contract has been formed. Contracting parties make promises to each other
because they are promising something for the future – after the contract has
been made. Executed consideration happens where at the time of the formation
of the contract, the consideration has already been performed. Executory
consideration normally happens in a bilateral agreement and executed
consideration normally happens in a unilateral agreement.

4. Why does the performance of an existing contractual duty will not constitute
sufficient consideration?
Because in order for a consideration to exist, one party must suffer a detriment and
the other gain a benefit. In the exercise of an existing contractual duty of a party to a

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

contract because the party who is performing that duty is doing nothing more than
what he is already legally obliged to do. He is also not suffering any detriment from
the already obliged work and the promisor is basically getting a benefit to which they
have already been entitled to. Stilk v Myrick (1809). Hartley v Ponsonby (1857).
Williams v Roffey Bros (1991).

5. In the case of Re Mc Ardle, why was the consideration unenforceable?

The general understanding of past consideration is not good consideration is
because consideration must be given in exchange of the other party’s consideration
and if one party completes the performance before the other offered a consideration,
that consideration is said not be enforceable.
In the case of Re Mc Ardle, the court ruled that although the wording of the
document in question suggested that the payment was related to the work to be
done in the future, the fact of the case made it clear that the promise given for
something that was already done, which means that it was past consideration and
thus not binding.

6. Suppose that A arranges for B to clean A’s windows, and promises to pay B
€ 30 for this work. B does the work. How does the analysis of ‘benefit’ and
‘detriment’ apply in identifying the consideration supplied by B for A’s promise
of payment?
Cleaning the windows is benefit to A. It is also a detriment to B (despite the fact that
he will receive 30 pounds) because he is spending his effort and time to do this
when in fact he could be doing something else. B’s actions are therefore clearly
consideration for A’s promise under the Curie v Misa rule.

7. What if A pays the 30 pounds to B immediately, and B promised to only

clean the windows next Tuesday. What is the consideration for B’s promise?
A’s payment will be a detriment to him but it will be a benefit to B. This still fits the
Curie v Misa rule. Executory consideration.

8. In the case of Ward V Byham (1956), why was the father’s promise
enforceable?
There are two possible answers to this question. The first is, as suggested by Lord
Denning, that the performance of an existing legal obligation should be treated as
good consideration, ‘so long as there is nothing in the transaction which is contrary

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

the public interest (what benefit for the society) (see also William v Williams
(1957)).
The more orthodox view is that the mother had done more than her legal duty in
relation to her care for her daughter (i.e. following the same as Glassbrook’s Bro’s
Ltd v Glamorgan CC) The implication is that if the mother has done simply what the
law required her to do she would not have provided good consideration. The
problem with the majority view on the particular facts of the case is that, it is difficult
to see that the mother’s actions has any economic value. (read the judgement)

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

1. What was held in the case of Simpkins v Pays?

a. All parties are intended to create legal relations as they were in the midst of their
divorce proceedings.
b. All parties are intended to create legal relations as all of them had contributed to
the competition with the expectation that any prize would be shared.
c. All parties did not intended to create legal relations as they were merely family
arrangements.
d. All parties did not intend to create legal relations because the transaction took place
in a setting of business relations = business relations do have ITCLR.

2. What is the purpose of consideration?

a. To evidence intention of contracting parties
b. To seal a contract
c. To give promises the badge of enforceability = in order for someone to legally
enforce a contract, they would look at whether the party have given each other
consideration. The whole idea of a consideration stamps out from a concept of
reciprocity (reciprocate), basically means when you do something you do it in return
of somebody to do something for you.
d. To prove a contract in writing

3. In the case of Tweddle v Atkinson, the son was not entitled to the money from his father-
in-law’s estate because
a. The consideration is not sufficient
b. It was a domestic agreement
c. There was no consideration
d. The consideration did not move from the promisee.

4. The case of R e McArdle concerned

a. A couple getting married = Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) / Shadwell v Shadwell (1860)

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

b. A man seeking pardon from the King = Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

c. A ship where two members were deserted = Stilk v Myrick (1809)
d. A wife undertaking repair work to the family property

5. Which one of the following statements is not correct?

a. Consideration need not benefit the promisor
b. Executed consideration is where, at the time of the contract, consideration has
already been performed.
c. Executory consideration is where something is to be done in the future
d. Executed consideration usually occurs in bilateral contract.

6. Which one of the following cases, the courts held that there is no consideration.
a. Lampleigh v Braithwhite (1615)
b. Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) = uncle promise to pay nephew
c. Thomas v Thomas (1842) = one pound
d. Foakes v Beer (1884) = the HOL upheld Mrs Beer claims by applying the rule of Pinnel’s
case (Part-payment of debt is not a good consideration for the promise to forgo the
balance).

7. Williams v Roffey Bros was a case that was in conflict with the principle laid down in Stilk
v Myrick
a. True = W v R perform an existing contractual duty confers an additional practical
benefit.
b. False

8. Which one of the following cases established that promissory estoppel can only be used
as a form of defence and not a cause of action?
a. Re Selectmove Ltd

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

b. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

c. Williams v Roffey Bros
d. Combe v Combe

9. Promissory Estoppel
a. Is an equitable exception to common law doctrine of part payment
b. Is common law waiver of rights = waiver under equity not common law
c. Seeks to put the parties back in the original position = claiming reliance loss
d. None of the above

10. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands suggests that
a. He must sanitize his hand before entering the courts
b. Suggests that in order to rely on equitable relief, good conscience is essential
c. Common law relief will always prevail over equitable relief
d. None of the above

11. In D & C Builders v Rees, in his obiter statement, Lord Denning held,
a. If the party claiming P.E. has acted in such a way that it would be inequitable to allow
him or her to take advantage of the doctrine, then the doctrine will not be applied.
b. If the party claiming consideration has acted in such a way that it would be
inequitable to allow him or her to take advantage of the doctrine, then the doctrine
will not be applied.
c. If the party claiming consideration has acted in such a way that it would be equitable
to allow him or her to take advantage of the doctrine, then the doctrine will not be
applied.
d. If the party claiming P.E. has acted in such a way that it would be inequitable to allow
him or her to take advantage of the doctrine, then the doctrine will be applied.

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

12. One of the exceptions to part-payment of debt is not good consideration is Promissory
Estoppel.

13. In White v Bluet, it was held that consideration cannot be of sentimental value.

14. Which agreements has a presumption to intention to create legal relations? Commercial.

15. Williams v Roffey Bros said that consideration was provided when promisee was merely
doing his contractual duty if the promisor enjoys a practical benefit.

16. The Espinasse Report in the case of Stilk v Myrick was decided based on what
considerations. Policy considerations.

17. In Thomas v Thomas, what was the sufficient consideration provided to enforce
husband’s promise? One pound.

18. An invitation to treat is a form of negotiation.

19. An expression of willingness to be bound of specific terms of an agreement speaks of an

offer.

20. An offer can be terminated by revocation.

21. An acceptance is only valid if it is communicated.

22. An acceptance need not to be communicated if it is posted.

23. Mrs Balfour was unable to enforce the husband’s promise because she did not provide
consideration.

24. Past consideration is good consideration if it is at whose request? Promisor.

25. In Promissory Estoppel, detrimental reliance took place of consideration

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

26. The case of Chappel v Nestle can be used to explain

a. The doctrine of consideration
b. The concept of sufficient consideration
c. The difference between the sufficient consideration and adequate consideration
d. All of the above

27. Sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law means any value tendered and accepted
by contracting parties.

28. The decision in the case of Re Mc Ardle can be explain as past consideration is not a
good consideration.

29. In the case of Ward v Byham, the courts found consideration on the basis that the
mother kept the child happy.

30. In the case of Colley v Godefrey, there was no consideration because he was under
court subpoena.

31. The promisee must act towards his own detriment in the context of estoppel suggest
a. He has given consideration for the promise
b. He has placed reliance on the promise
c. He has acted on a varied agreement giving rise to the promise or estoppel
d. All of the above
32.

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

Question 1
In the case of Stilk v Myrrick the captain was able to go back on his promise about
sharing the wages between the crew because
Response: They had an existing contractual duty to do what they had promised
Correct answer: They had an existing contractual duty to do what they had
promised
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 2
In D & C Builders v Rees, in his obiter statement, Lord Denning held,
Response: If the party claiming promissory estoppel has acted in such a way that it
would be inequitable to allow him or her to take advantage of the doctrine, then the
doctrine will be applied
Correct answer: If the party claiming promissory estoppel has acted in such a way
that it would be inequitable to allow him or her to take advantage of the doctrine,
then the doctrine will be applied
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 3
In Williams v Roffey Bros what was the practical / factual benefit included to mean
Response: All of the above
Correct answer: Avoidance of legal hassle
Score: 0 out of 1 No

Question 4
What does it mean “Promissory Estoppel is a shield and not a sword”
Response: None of the above
Correct answer: None of the above
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 5
The traditional definition of consideration as : “ . . . some right interest profit or
benefit . . . is found in :
Response: Currie v Misa
Correct answer: Currie v Misa
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 6
Why was past consideration considered sufficient in Lampleigh v Braithwaite?

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

Response: Because the promisor had requested the performance

Correct answer: Because the promisor had requested the performance
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 7
Promissory Estoppel
Response: Varies parties contractual obligations
Correct answer: Varies parties contractual obligations = modifies parties existing
contractual relationship
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 8
An existing contractual obligation between contracting parties must be varied
suggests that
Response: In order for Promissory Estoppel to apply, original promise must be
proven
Correct answer: Estoppel only applies to terms that has been varied
Score: 0 out of 1 No

Question 9
The 3-stage test for when past consideration is good consideration is now found in
Response: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Correct answer: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 10
Why did the court not follow Stilk v Myrrick in Hartley v Ponsonby?
Response: Because the crew had performed the promise precisely
Correct answer: Because the crew had gone beyond their existing duty
Score: 0 out of 1 No

Question 11
The consideration provided in Chapple v Nestle was :
Response: All of the above
Correct answer: All of the above
(The money, The used chocolate wrappers, writing in to claim the record. Customers
paid for the record label that nestle was selling amounted to a consideration and the
wrappers are part of the consideration. Economic value can be negligible.)
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9460583

Question 12
The (earlier) requirement that consideration must move from the promisee can be
seen in :
Response: Tweedle v Atkinson
Correct answer: Tweedle v Atkinson
(Son-in-law tried to enforce the promise that was made by his father-in-law. The
court held that the son-in-law is not a party to the agreement that was made between
both his father and father-in-law. In order for him to enforce their promise, he should
have provided consideration. So the consideration should actually move from the
promise. However the son is not the promisee.)
Roscorla v Thomas = past consideration is not a good consideration
Williams v Roffey Bros = practical benefit
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes

Question 13
According to Pinnel's case part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a
promise to forego the balance. Which of the following is NOT an exception to this
rule
Response: Where the debtor offers to pay before the due date
Correct answer: Payment of a smaller sum alone is sufficient
(Payment of a smaller sum alone is sufficient is not an exception. It is part of the
general rule. GR: Payment of a smaller sum is not sufficient to forgo the balance.)
Score: 0 out of 1 No

Question 14
Promissory Estoppel protects
Response: none of the above
Correct answer: reliance rights
Score: 0 out of 1

Downloaded by Atimango Jane (janeatimango99@gmail.com)