This is an extract of our Requirements For Consideration document, which we sell as part of our Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble 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:
Requirements for Consideration The basic idea
Chen Wishart: In order to acquire the right to enforce undertaking (promise) o A party must undertake to give/actually give something stipulated by other as price of undertaking (consideration) Other requirements
The consideration of the promisee must move from the promisee, but need not move to the promisor o It could move from the promisee to a 3 rd party instead and still be good consideration
? But under the Privity rule, that 3 rd party would not be able to enforce the giving of the consideration unless he fell into C(R3P) A 1999
Consideration must be requested by the promisor o Smith: All that is necessary is that D should, expressly or impliedly, ask for something in return for his promise
? If he gets what he's asked for = good consideration.
? BUT must have been desired by the promisor not just relied upon as being sufficient in return for the promise
E.g. Combe v Combe : Husband promised to pay ex-wife PS100 a year upon their divorce. He stopped. Wife sought to enforce the promise b/c said she had given consideration by not suing for maintenance. o CoA: not enforceable b/c husband had not requested that she not sue for maintenance
? Thus her forbearance (consideration) RESULTED FROM his promise to pay
? BUT was NOT GIVEN IN RETURN for it o Chen Wishart: but courts will sometimes imply a request for forbearance as being consideration - shows that courts have considerable leeway in deciding whether or not to imply a request by the promisor
? and so vest the promisee's reliance on the promisor with the label of consideration (may depend on context).
? Alliance Bank v Broom : B undertook to provide some security for its debt to A. When A sued B for the debt, B claimed A gave no consideration for it
Held that b/c B's request, A had not sued o Although B had not expressly requested A to forbear, the court implied such a request though B attempting to rack up some security.
Must result from the promise - o Must support the promise
? Satisfaction of a condition only consideration if it was requested as a price of the promise by the promisor
Chappel v Nestle o E.g. 3 wrappers only valuable if they were those advertising special offer, were Nestle's chocolate bars and were with 1s 6d postage for purpose of getting record
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.