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:
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
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.
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...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started