Edited, memorised or added to reading queue

on 02-Aug-2016 (Tue)

Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Click here to log in or create user.

Flashcard 1377767132428

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Duress of the person, as the name suggests, is where [...].
Answer
a contract is entered into unwillingly by one contracting party because they are being physically threatened by the other

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Duress of the person, as the name suggests, is where a contract is entered into unwillingly by one contracting party because they are being physically threatened by the other.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377768181004

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Duress of the person, as the name suggests, is where a contract is entered into unwillingly by one contracting party because they are being physically threatened by the other. The leading case on duress to the person is the Privy Council case [ case ].
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ess of the person, as the name suggests, is where a contract is entered into unwillingly by one contracting party because they are being physically threatened by the other. The leading case on duress to the person is the Privy Council case <span>Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377771851020

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the management of the company. With the assistance of two other directors, Barton forced the removal of Armstrong as chairman. In order to achieve the total removal of Armstrong from the company, Barton agreed to pay $140,000 in Australian dollars, cash, to Armstrong. Barton alleged that Armstrong had extorted the sums of money on the basis of duress. He alleged that Armstrong had, inter alia, uttered threats to kill Barton, made threatening phone calls, and caused Barton a genuine belief that Armstrong had hired a contract-killer to terminate him. Further to this, Barton also alleged that Armstrong had phoned Barton at his office saying: ‘You had better sign this agreement – or else.’ The case was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Board agreed that on the evidence it was clear that Armstrong had threatened Barton.
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377777356044

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balance by instalments, Mrs Beer would not 'take any proceedings whatever on the judgment'. The agreement made no reference to the question of interest although by virtue of the Judgments Act 1838, all judgment debts carry interest until paid. Dr Foakes ultimately paid the whole amount of the judgment debt itself and Mrs Beer then claimed the accrued interest. Dr Foakes refused to pay on the basis of the written agreement while Mrs Beer claimed that the agreement was unsupported by consideration. HELD by the House of Lords: Judgment was given in favour of Mrs Beer. This was a naked attempt to usurp the rule in Pinnel's Case and the Earl of Selborne LC pointed out that the House would 'not do right' to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which was based on a doctrine that had been accepted as part of the law of England for 280 years.
Answer
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balan

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377779191052

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Part payment of a debt is not good consideration.
Answer
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balan

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377782074636

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
It has been argued that the two cases can be distinguished on the grounds that Foakes v Beer concerned a [...], while Williams v Roffey involved a promise to pay more to secure performance of an existing contractual obligation.
Answer
promise to accept a lesser sum in payment

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It has been argued that the two cases can be distinguished on the grounds that Foakes v Beer concerned a promise to accept a lesser sum in payment, while Williams v Roffey involved a promise to pay more to secure performance of an existing contractual obligation.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377783123212

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
It has been argued that the two cases can be distinguished on the grounds that Foakes v Beer concerned a promise to accept a lesser sum in payment, while Williams v Roffey involved a [...].
Answer
promise to pay more to secure performance of an existing contractual obligation

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It has been argued that the two cases can be distinguished on the grounds that Foakes v Beer concerned a promise to accept a lesser sum in payment, while Williams v Roffey involved a promise to pay more to secure performance of an existing contractual obligation.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377784171788

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The Court of Appeal has had a further opportunity to review the situation and has confirmed that the Williams v Roffey principle does not apply to the variation of a strict contractual right whereby one party agrees to accept a lesser sum.
Answer
Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377787055372

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Summarising the state of the law, we might say that, whereas [ case ] might apply to a promise to pay extra, the rule in Pinnel's Case applies to a promise to accept less;
Answer
Williams v Roffey

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Summarising the state of the law, we might say that, whereas Williams v Roffey might apply to a promise to pay extra, the rule in Pinnel's Case applies to a promise to accept less;

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377788890380

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Summarising the state of the law, we might say that, whereas Williams v Roffey might apply to a promise to pay extra, the rule in [ case ] applies to a promise to accept less;
Answer
Pinnel's Case

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Summarising the state of the law, we might say that, whereas Williams v Roffey might apply to a promise to pay extra, the rule in Pinnel's Case applies to a promise to accept less;

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377793346828

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
If, at the creditor's request, some new element is introduced, such as payment at a different place, or at a different time, compliance with this request will amount to consideration for the waiver.
Answer
Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If, at the creditor's request, some new element is introduced, such as payment at a different place, or at a different time, compliance with this request will amount to consideration for the waiver.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377799900428

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The plaintiffs then brought the action to recover the balance. Decisively rejecting the view expressed in the Sibree case, the Court of Appeal said that, in modern times, no sound distinction could be drawn between cash and cheque payments such that it could be a benefit to the creditor to have a cheque for a lesser amount than to have the whole amount in cash.
Answer
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The plaintiffs then brought the action to recover the balance. Decisively rejecting the view expressed in the Sibree case, the Court of Appeal said that, in modern times, no sound distinction could be drawn between cash and cheque payments such that it could be a benefit to the creditor to have a cheque for a lesser amount than to have the whole amount in cash.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377803570444

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Part payment of a debt at a different place can amount to valuable consideration, provided it is at the creditor's request:
Answer
Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Part payment of a debt at a different place can amount to valuable consideration, provided it is at the creditor's request: Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377805405452

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Part payment of a debt at a different place can amount to valuable consideration, provided [...]: Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223.
Answer
it is at the creditor's request

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Part payment of a debt at a different place can amount to valuable consideration, provided it is at the creditor's request: Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377807502604

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Where a third party enters into an agreement with a creditor, by which the creditor accepts payment of a lesser sum than the debt in full satisfaction of the debtor's obligation, the creditor cannot sue the debtor for the difference.
Answer
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where a third party enters into an agreement with a creditor, by which the creditor accepts payment of a lesser sum than the debt in full satisfaction of the debtor's obligation, the creditor cannot sue the debtor for the difference.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377810386188

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ], the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise to receive it in full satisfaction of his claim. The money was duly paid but the plaintiff still sued the defendant. Lord Tenterden maintained that: 'if the father did pay the smaller sum in satisfaction of this debt, it is a bar to the plaintiff now recovering against the son because, by suing the son, he commits a fraud on the father, whom he induced to advance him money on the faith of such advance being a discharge of his son from further liability.'
Answer
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557, the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377814056204

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: In September 1939, the plaintiffs leased a block of flats to the defendants, who planned to lease out the individual flats. When the Second World War broke out, the defendants had difficulty in leasing all of the flats and so, in 1940, the landlord agreed to accept just half of the ground rent stipulated in the lease. This arrangement continued until 1945, by which time all the flats were fully let and the plaintiffs sought to return to the terms of the original agreement. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants claiming the full original rent both for the future and the last two quarters of 1945. HELD: Mr Justice Denning held that the action should succeed. The parties intended the reduction of the rent to be a temporary measure while the flats could not be fully let. The flats were fully let early in 1945 and therefore Denning J held that the plaintiffs should be able to recover the full rent from the last two quarters of 1945 onwards. Mr Justice Denning expressed the view, obiter, that the plaintiffs would not have been able to recover the rent for the period between 1940 and 1945 even though there was no consideration for the promise to accept reduced rent. The reason for this was that he thought that there was a general equitable principle whereby:

A promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply.

Answer
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 FACTS: In September 1939, the plaintiffs leased a block of flats to the defendants, who planned to lease out the individual flats. When the Second World War broke out, the defendants had

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377816939788

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Promissory estoppel can only act as a defence to an action: it cannot be used as a cause of action.
Answer
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Promissory estoppel can only act as a defence to an action: it cannot be used as a cause of action. This was made clear by the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215. In the language of counsel for the husband in Combe v Combe, the doctrine is a shield and

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377820609804

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The promise must be intended to affect legal relations and not simply amount to a gratuitous privilege given to the promisee. It is apparent from [ case ] that the promise need not be express but can be implied, as it was in that case, through conduct.
Answer
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The promise must be intended to affect legal relations and not simply amount to a gratuitous privilege given to the promisee. It is apparent from Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 that the promise need not be express but can be implied, as it was in that case, through conduct.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377824279820

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: By a contract of sale, provision was made for payment in Nigerian pounds (£N) in Lagos. However, the buyers asked if the sellers would be prepared to accept pounds sterling in Lagos. The sellers replied, 'payment can be made in sterling and in Lagos'. Pound sterling was then devalued so that it was worth 15 per cent less than £N. The buyers argued that the seller's letter amounted to either a variation (supported by consideration) or a representation that they could make payment in sterling in Lagos on the basis of one pound for one £N, so that the sellers were estopped from going back on it. HELD: It was held by the House of Lords that the sellers' representation was not sufficiently precise either to amount to a variation of the contract terms or found an estoppel. In order to found a promissory estoppel a representation had to be clear and unequivocal, that is, expressed so that it would be understood in the sense required. On the facts, it was not clear whether the sellers were agreeing simply that payment could be made in sterling (without this altering the value of the contract) or whether they were agreeing to tie the value of the contract to Sterling (and, with that, taking the risk that sterling might be devalued).
Answer
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA and another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1972] AC 741

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA and another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1972] AC 741 FACTS: By a contract of sale, provision was made for payment in Nigerian pounds (£N) in Lagos. However, the buyers asked if the sellers would be prepared to accept pounds sterling in Lag

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377827163404

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Although the promise need not be the only reason for the promisee's change in position, it must have influenced the promisee's conduct in some way. Where the promisee has, after the promise, conducted himself in the way intended by the promisor, it will be up to the promisor to establish that the conduct was not induced by the promise.
Answer
Brikom Investments v Carr [1979] 2 All ER 753

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ave influenced the promisee's conduct in some way. Where the promisee has, after the promise, conducted himself in the way intended by the promisor, it will be up to the promisor to establish that the conduct was not induced by the promise (<span>Brikom Investments v Carr [1979] 2 All ER 753).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377828998412

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
For promissory estoppel to have an effect there must have been a change in position in reliance on the promise.
Answer
Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377830833420

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Lord Denning MR said that although it was essential that the debtor should have acted on the promise, it was not essential that he should have acted on it to his detriment.
Answer
Alan (WJ) & Co v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 QB 189

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377833717004

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Although detriment is not essential, it may be easier to establish that it is inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise where the promisee has acted to his detriment. Mr Justice Goff, in [ case ], said that the proof of detriment is evidential as to the inequity of going back on a promise.
Answer
The Post Chaser [1982] 1 All ER 19

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Although detriment is not essential, it may be easier to establish that it is inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise where the promisee has acted to his detriment. Mr Justice Goff, in The Post Chaser [1982] 1 All ER 19, said that the proof of detriment is evidential as to the inequity of going back on a promise.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377836600588

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The doctrine only applies where it would be inequitable for the creditor to go back on his promise. As Lord Goff stated in [ case ] ', it does not follow in every case in which the representee has acted, or failed to act in reliance on the representation, that it will be inequitable for the representor to enforce his rights'.
Answer
The Post Chaser

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The doctrine only applies where it would be inequitable for the creditor to go back on his promise. As Lord Goff stated in The Post Chaser ', it does not follow in every case in which the representee has acted, or failed to act in reliance on the representation, that it will be inequitable for the representor to enforce h

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377838435596

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The use of promissory estoppel, as an equitable doctrine, is at the discretion of the courts. Even if the other elements of the doctrine are made out, it may still not be applied because it would be inequitable in the circumstances to do so.
Answer
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377840270604

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
'the promisor can resile from his promise on giving reasonable notice, which need not be a formal notice, giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming his position'
Answer
Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377842105612

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The one who waives his strict rights cannot afterwards insist on them. His strict rights are at any rate suspended so long as the waiver lasts. He may, on occasion, be able to revert to his strict legal rights for the future by giving reasonable notice in that behalf, or otherwise making it plain by his conduct that he will thereafter insist on them. But there are cases where no withdrawal is possible. It may be too late to withdraw; or it cannot be done without injustice to the other party. In that event he is bound by his waiver. He will not be allowed to revert to his strict legal rights. He can only enforce them subject to the waiver he has made.
Answer
Alan (WJ) & Co v El Nasr Export and Import Co

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377843940620

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The case confirms the general view that promissory estoppel is merely suspensory and that the promisor can resume his full legal rights under the contract after giving reasonable notice of his intention to do so.
Answer
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co [1955] 1 WLR 761

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377846824204

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A contract that has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the [...].
Answer
wronged party must take action to rescind the contract

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A contract that has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377847872780

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A contract that has been entered into under duress is [...]. In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.
Answer
voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A contract that has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377849969932

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ], the court held that a wrongful threat of imprisonment constituted duress to the person.
Answer
Williams v Bayley (1886) LR 1 HL 200

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Williams v Bayley (1886) LR 1 HL 200, the court held that a wrongful threat of imprisonment constituted duress to the person.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377851804940

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In Williams v Bayley (1886) LR 1 HL 200, the court held that [...] constituted duress to the person.
Answer
a wrongful threat of imprisonment

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Williams v Bayley (1886) LR 1 HL 200, the court held that a wrongful threat of imprisonment constituted duress to the person.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377853902092

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The leading case on duress to the person is [ case ]
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading case on duress to the person is Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377855737100

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Duress to the person need be only one factor influencing the wronged party's behaviour.
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377857572108

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Economic duress applies the standard 'but for' test of causation.
Answer
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 620

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377861242124

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
For economic duress there must be pressure: (3)
Answer
(a) resulting in compulsion or lack of practical choice,
(b) which is illegitimate, and
(c) which is a significant cause of the victim entering into the contract.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm). For economic duress there must be pressure: (a) resulting in compulsion or lack of practical choice, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause of the victim entering into the contract.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377863077132

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
For economic duress there must be pressure:
(a) resulting in compulsion or lack of practical choice,
(b) which is illegitimate, and
(c) which is a significant cause of the victim entering into the contract.
Answer
Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm).

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm). For economic duress there must be pressure: (a) resulting in compulsion or lack of practical choice, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause of the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377864912140

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The idea that economic duress might be a ground upon which a contract could be set aside was first given formal recognition in.
Answer
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S Avanti, (The Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377867795724

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
As can be seen from Kerr J's statement above, three elements were identified as being crucial to proving economic duress:
(a) coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent;
(b) that the party claiming duress protested at the time of the duress or shortly thereafter; and
(c) that the agreement entered into under the alleged duress was not seen by the wronged party as being 'settled and binding'.
Answer
The Siboen and The Sibotre

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
As can be seen from Kerr J's statement above, three elements were identified as being crucial to proving economic duress: (a) coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent; (b) that the party claiming duress protested at the time of the duress or shortly thereafter; and (c) that the agreement entered into under the alleged duress was not seen by the wronged party as being 'settled and binding'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377869630732

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
As can be seen from Kerr J's statement above, three elements were identified as being crucial to proving economic duress: (3)
Answer
(a) coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent;
(b) that the party claiming duress protested at the time of the duress or shortly thereafter; and
(c) that the agreement entered into under the alleged duress was not seen by the wronged party as being 'settled and binding'.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
As can be seen from Kerr J's statement above, three elements were identified as being crucial to proving economic duress: (a) coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent; (b) that the party claiming duress protested at the time of the duress or shortly thereafter; and (c) that the agreement entered into

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377889815820

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Definition of consideration
Answer
'an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable'

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377893485836

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A more concise definition of consideration is given by Pollock, namely that, 'an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable'. Pollock's definition was adopted by the House of Lords in [ case ], the leading case on consideration.
Answer
Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
mely that, 'an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable'. Pollock's definition was adopted by the House of Lords in <span>Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, the leading case on consideration.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377895320844

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
It is not generally possible to use as consideration some act or forbearance which has taken place prior to the promise to pay. Consideration must be given in return for the promise of the other party.
Answer
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 A & E 438

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377898204428

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service.
Answer
Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service. This exception can be traced back to the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377900039436

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where [...] and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service. This exception can be traced back to the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105.
Answer
some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service. This exception can be traced back to the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105.</b

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377901088012

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request and [...]. This exception can be traced back to the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105.
Answer
it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An exception to the past consideration rule exists where some prior act or service was provided by the promisee at the promisor's request and it was always understood that payment would be made for that act or service. This exception can be traced back to the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377902136588

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
'An act done before the giving of a promise to make a payment or to confer some other benefit can sometimes be consideration for the promise.'
Answer
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377906068748

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ] Lord Scarman went on to outline the necessary three conditions for the exception to apply:
  1. The act must have been done at the promisor's request.
  2. The parties must have understood that the act was to be rewarded either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit.
  3. The payment, or conferment of other benefits, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.
Answer
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman went on to outline the necessary three conditions for the exception to apply: The act must have been done at the promisor's request. The parties must have understood t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377907903756

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman went on to outline the necessary three conditions for the exception to apply: (3)
Answer
  1. The act must have been done at the promisor's request.
  2. The parties must have understood that the act was to be rewarded either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit.
  3. The payment, or conferment of other benefits, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman went on to outline the necessary three conditions for the exception to apply: The act must have been done at the promisor's request. The parties must have understood that the act was to be rewarded either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit. The p

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377909738764

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Consideration must move from the promisee.
Answer
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377913408780

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Consideration must have some value 'in the eyes of the law'. It matters not how small that value is, so long as it is worth something. If a thing of value can be identified, then there will be sufficiency of consideration and, as seen above, the court will not enquire as to its adequacy.
Answer
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

pdf

cannot see any pdfs






Flashcard 1377916292364

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In the case of [ case ], a father promised to discharge his son from the obligation to repay money he had borrowed if the son refrained from complaining about the father's distribution of his property among his children. His father's executors sued the son for the money. It was held that there was no consideration from the son for his father's promise. The father had every legal right to distribute his property as he chose and his son had no legal right to complain about the distribution. The son was therefore giving nothing up by forbearing to complain.
Answer
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the case of White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36, a father promised to discharge his son from the obligation to repay money he had borrowed if the son refrained from complaining about the father's distribution of his property among

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs