Contract - Consideration And Estoppel: Cases

11 Questions  I  By Chriscullen
A quiz to assist in learning and to revise the cases relevant in answering an exam question on Consideration and Estoppel. This quiz contains 11 questions and covers the 11 most necessary cases in the topic.

  
Changes are done, please start the quiz.


Question Excerpt

Removing question excerpt is a premium feature

Upgrade and get a lot more done!
1.  The definition of consideration is the benefit to one party, or the detriment to the other. Which case established this definition?
A.
B.
C.
2.  A promise needs to have some economical value to be considered sufficient. In this case, a father had promised a reward if the son promised to stop complaining. This was considered to be insufficient in the eyes of the law.
A.
B.
C.
3.  Despite needing to be "sufficient" a promise needn't be "adequate." The widow of the homeowner paid £1 per year ground rent, the courts ignored the value, £1 is sufficient. Which case was this?
A.
B.
C.
4.  Past consideration is not good consideration. In this case the wife carried out home improvements, the children later promised to pay when they take over ownership of the home.
A.
B.
C.
5.  Past consideration may be bad consideration, however if there is a reasonable expectation to be paid/rewarded before performing the action then the courts may allow the past consideration to be sufficient. Which case established this exception?
A.
B.
C.
6.  During a voyage, two seamen abandoned ship. The captain promised the remaining workers a cut of the two seamen. The judges held that there was no change to the other workers obligation under the existing contractual duty, therefore no new consideration. Which case was this?
A.
B.
C.
7.  So we know that an existing contractual duty is not good consideration. Acting on an existing legal duty is also considered not to be good consideration. In this case the witness was promised six guineas to appear as a witness in court. (Weird, I know!) but the court held that appearing in court was not good consideration as it was a legal obligation to to attend and give evidence. Which case was this?
A.
B.
C.
8.  If an existing legal duty is part of the agreement, there must be extra consideration for it to be considered to be binding. In this case the mother of a child was promised £1 from the father to "maintain and keep the child happy." The father stopped paying. The court held that the mother was only legally obliged to "maintain" the child, keeping the child happy was extra consideration. Which case was this?
A.
B.
C.
9.  A duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, even though they may not be formally contracted to carry out the promise. In this case, one party was contracted to deliver a drilling machine from Liverpool to Wellington. To move the machine, the delivering company contracted a third party, who subsequently damaged the product. Which case was this?
A.
B.
C.
10.  What consideration is necessary for debt to be part-paid/written off? In this case, the owing party met financial struggles, so the debtor had agreed to write off some debt without anything in return. The debtor then claimed the debt which was supposedly written off. Because the obligation of the contract was to make payment for the full amount, the contract was still in progress until such a time the full amount was paid. The famous quote "hawk, horse or robe" was established - suggesting anything in return for the written off money would have amounted to good consideration and the debt could have been abolished. Which case?
A.
B.
C.
11.  Estoppel remember must only ever be used defensively. Estoppel is where a debtor accepts a smaller amount in full settlement of the contract. For example: Jack rents a house from David. There is a war, affecting the area of the property including the amount of work in the area. Jack can no longer afford to live in the property, so David agrees to accept the rent at half price for the duration of the war so Jack continues to live in the property. The war ends, Jack can now live and work and afford the full rent. David puts the rent back to the full price. But also claims the difference between the half price rent and the full price rent for the 2 years of the war - totalling £5000. Estoppel is used defensively to stop David being able to claim the additional sum for the 2 years, despite it effectively being a part payment with no consideration on Jack's part, estoppel can be used to stop David claiming the extra. What case has similar facts?
A.
B.
C.
Back to top


to post comments.

Removing ad is a premium feature

Upgrade and get a lot more done!
Take Another Quiz