Contract - Consideration And Estoppel: Cases

In Pinnel's Case, the court ruled that the debtor is not relieved of their obligation to pay the full amount of the debt if the creditor agrees to accept a partial payment or write off a portion of the debt without receiving anything in return. The court held that without any new consideration, the original contract remains in effect and the debtor is still obligated to pay the full amount. The famous quote "hawk, horse or robe" refers to the idea that if the debtor had provided something of value in return for the written off money, it could have been considered good consideration and the debt could have been discharged.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Stilk v Myrick, the court held that there was no new consideration provided by the captain's promise to the remaining workers. The court determined that the workers were already under an existing contractual duty to perform their duties on the ship, and the promise of a cut from the two seamen did not provide any additional benefit or change their obligations. Therefore, there was no valid consideration for the promise and it was not enforceable.

Currie v Misa is the case that established the definition of consideration as the benefit to one party or the detriment to the other.

In Collins v Goodfroy, the court held that appearing in court as a witness was not considered good consideration because it was a legal obligation to attend and give evidence. This means that the promise of six guineas to the witness was not enforceable as there was no valid consideration for the promise.

In the case of Ward v Byham, the court held that the mother was only legally obliged to "maintain" the child, and keeping the child happy was considered extra consideration. This means that the promise made by the father to pay £1 to "maintain and keep the child happy" was not legally binding because it did not involve any additional consideration beyond the existing legal duty of maintaining the child. Therefore, the correct answer is Ward v Byham.

In the case of ReMcArdle, the question is about the concept of consideration in contract law. Consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between parties in a contract. In this case, the wife carried out home improvements, which can be seen as past consideration. Past consideration is generally not considered good consideration because it involves actions or promises made before the contract was formed. Therefore, the promise made by the children to pay for the improvements when they take over ownership of the home would not be legally enforceable.

Pau On v Lau Yiu Long established the exception that past consideration may be sufficient if there is a reasonable expectation of being paid or rewarded before performing the action.

In the case of Thomas v Thomas, the widow of the homeowner paid £1 per year as ground rent. The courts considered this amount to be sufficient, despite it not being adequate in terms of its value. This suggests that the court recognized that the widow had fulfilled her obligation to pay rent, even though the amount was very low.

In White v Bluett, the court held that a promise to stop complaining does not have any economic value and therefore cannot be considered as sufficient consideration. The law requires consideration to have some economic value in order to enforce a promise. Since the promise made by the son in this case did not involve any economic benefit, it was deemed insufficient and the father's promise of a reward was not legally binding.

In the case of New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite, a duty was owed to a third party (the delivering company) to transport the drilling machine. The third party, in this case, was contracted to carry out the promise of delivering the machine, but they damaged the product. This situation demonstrates that a duty owed to a third party can still be considered good consideration, even if there is no formal contract between the third party and the party making the promise.