This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Contract Law Notes

Consideration Notes

Updated Consideration Notes

Contract Law Notes

Contract Law

Approximately 1511 pages

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB contract law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Contract Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Table of Contents

Introductory Ideas 3

I – Consideration 3

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 (definition) 3

A - Something of value (consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate) 3

1 - Where the consideration is promise to pay money for a service/product nominal consideration (usually) sufficient 3

2 - Where the consideration is promise to provide some non-monetary benefit more complex 3

Chappell v Nestlé [1960] AC 87 4

Lord Wedderburn (1959, CLJ) 4

Thomas v Thomas (1842) per Patteson J 4

Hamer v Sidway (1891, NY) per Parker J 4

Atiyah, “Consideration in Contracts: A Fundamental Restatement” (1971) 5

Smith, The Law of Contract – Alive or Dead? 5

B - Past consideration 5

Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) (past consideration is not good consideration) 5

NOTE Atiyah (The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, 1979) 5

PaO On v Lau Yiu [1980] AC 614 (exceptions to the rule that past consideration is not good consideration) 6

C - Pre-existing Duty Rule (Good consideration to promise to do something you’re already bound to do?) 6

1 - Performance of a contractual duty owed to a third party good consideration 6

Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) (performance of a contract with third party is good consideration) 6

New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite, The Eurymedon [1975] AC 154 (ibid.) 7

Pao On v Lau Yiu [1980] AC 614 (promise to perform a contract with third party is good consideration) 7

2 - Performance of a contractual duty owed to the promisor not clear 7

Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 (not good consideration) 7

Williams v Roffey [1990] 1 All ER 512 (may be good consideration if practical benefit and no economic duress or fraud) 7

Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith [2003] 2 NZLR 23 (New Zealand) 9

NOTE Coote (2003) 120 LQR 19 9

3 - Performance of a duty imposed by law probably not, except Lord Denning who says yes 9

Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 (might be good consideration) 9

Williams v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 148 10

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC [1925] AC 270 10

4 - Part Payment of a Debt 11

Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 11

NOTE Treitel, Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law 11

D & C Builders v Reees [1966] 2 QB 617 (rejection to protect creditors) 12

Re Selectmove [1995] 2 All ER 531 (rejection because Foakes is HL precedent) 12

Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723, 747 (New South Wales test inspired by Williams v Roffey) 13

MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 553 (not part payment of a debt?) 14

O’Sullivan, “In Defence of Foakes v Beer” (1996) 14

Treitel, Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law (2002) 14

D – Consideration must move from the promisee (not from third party) 14

E – Necessary Link Between Consideration and Promise 14

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 15

NOTE Goodhart (1951) 15

NOTE Atiyah (Consideration: A Restatement) 15

F – The future of consideration 15

Gay Choon v Loh Sze [2009] SGCA 3 (Singapore Court of Appeal, suggesting alternatives) 15

II - Promissory Estoppel 17

A – Scope of Estoppel Error! Bookmark not defined.

1 – Definition of estoppel 18

Cooke, The Modern Law of Estoppel (2000) 18

Birks (Equity in the Modern Law) 18

2 – Foundational Cases 18

Hughes v Metropolitan Rly (1877) 2 App Cas 439 18

Central London Property v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 18

Treitel (Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law) 19

3 – The ingredients of promissory estoppel 19

Ajari v R T Briscoe (1964) 19

Collier v Wright Holdings [2007] EWCA civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643 (part payment of debt) 19

a - Clear and unequivocal promise 20

Woodhouse AC Ltd v Nigerian Produce Ltd [1972] AC 741 20

b – The promisee has altered his position to the extent that it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise (though not necessarily to his detriment) 20

Société Italo-Belge v Palm and Vegetable Oils (1982) “The Palm Chaser” 20

c – Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise 20

D and C Builders v Rees [1965] 3 All ER 837 20

d – Generally of suspensory effect as to obligations for the future, but can be extinctive of past obligations 21

Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric [1955] 1 WLR 761 (H.L.) 21

e – Estoppel cannot act as a cause of action 21

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 21

Halson, “The Offensive Limits of Promissory Estoppel” (1999) 21

4 – The different types of estoppel 23

Amalgamated Investment v Texas Commerce Int. Bank [1981] 3 All ER 577 22

Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737 23

MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 553 20

Crabb v Arun D.C. [1976] Ch 179 24

Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 64 ALJR 540, (1990) 170 CLR 394 26

Walton Stores v Maher (1988) 62 ALJR 110, (1988) 164 CLR 387 25

III - Commentary 27

Atiyah (Introduction to the Law of Contract) 68-9, 106-130 17

Atiyah, “Consideration in Contracts: A Fundamental Restatement” (1971) pp. 27-34, reprinted (with slight revision) as Essay 8, Essays on Contract (1986) pp. 206-214, 179 16

Treitel, “Consideration: A Critical Analysis of Professor Atiyah’s Fundamental Restatement” (1976) 50 ALJ 439 16

Atiyah, “When is an Enforceable Agreement not a Contract? Answer: When it is an Equity” (1976) 92 LQR 174 24

Millett, “Crabb v Arun DC – A Riposte” (1976) 92 LQR 342 24

Burrows, “Contract, Tort & Restitution – A Satisfactory Division or Not?” (1983) 99 LQR 217, 239-244 27

Peel, “Part Payment of a Debt is no Consideration” (1994) 100 LQR 353 13

Chen-Wishart, “A Bird in the Hand: Consideration and Promissory Estoppel” 28

Chen-Wishart, “In Defence of Consideration” (2013) 13 OUCJL 209 17

Cooke, “Estoppel and the Protection of Expectations” (1997) 17 Legal Studies 258 28

Chen-Wishart, “Reform of Consideration: No Greener Grass” in S Degeling, J Edelman and J Goudkamp (eds) 28

I – Consideration

  • Orthodox view = consideration is about reciprocity or bargains (in order to be entitled to enforce a promise,...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.

More Contract Law Samples