on 03-Aug-2016 (Wed)

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Re Casey's Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

The rule in Williams v Roffey only applies to promises to pay more.

Answer

Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Merely carrying out a public duty imposed by the law will not amount to sufficiency of consideration.

Answer

Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

FACTS: Collins was subpoenaed by Godefroy to attend as a witness in an action. Collins subsequently brought an action against Godefroy, claiming a guinea a day as his fee for attendance. Assuming that Godefroy had expressly promised to pay the sum claimed as compensation for loss of time, was there any consideration for the promise? HELD: There was no consideration for the promise. The duty to attend was a duty imposed by law.

Answer

Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

The duty of a police officer is the prevention of crime and he is not under a duty to provide information to a private individual. In doing so he went beyond his public duty and thus provided consideration for the offer of reward.

Answer

England v Davidson (1840) 11 A & E 856

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

FACTS: To maintain law and order, a substantial police presence was required inside the defendant's football ground and this involved a significant amount of police overtime. According to the police, their attendance at the request of the club amounted to 'special police services' for which, by statute, the defendants were obliged to pay. The club refused to pay for these services claiming that the police were merely carrying out their normal public duty in ensuring the maintenance of law and order and, therefore, they had provided no consideration for the promise of the defendants to pay for those services. HELD: The responsibility of the club was to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the game took place in conditions that did not occasion danger to any person or property. The attendance of the police was necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty, which went beyond the maintenance of law and order, and for which the club should pay.

Answer

Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77
FACTS: To maintain law and order, a substantial police presence was required inside the defendant's football ground and this involved a significant amount of police overtime. According to the police, their attendance at the request of the club amounted to 'special police services' for which, by statute, the defendants were obliged to pay. The club refused to pay for these services claiming that the police were merely carrying out their normal public duty in ensuring the maintenance of law and order and, therefore, they had provided no consideration for the promise of the defendants to pay for those services. HELD: The responsibility of the club was [...]. The attendance of the police was necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty, which went beyond the maintenance of law and order, and for which the club should pay.

Answer

to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the game took place in conditions that did not occasion danger to any person or property

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

FACTS: The parents of an illegitimate child separated and the father paid a neighbour £1 per week to look after the child. Subsequently, the mother wrote to the father to ask him to let her have the child and the £1 per week. The father agreed if: (a) the mother could prove that the child would be well and happy; and (b) that the child was allowed to decide for herself whether or not she wished to live with her mother. The child did wish to live with the mother and the father paid the £1 per week for seven months. At that point the mother married and the father refused to make any further payments. The mother sued for breach of contract and the father pleaded want of consideration. He maintained that the National Assistance Act 1974 s 42 imposed a duty on the mother of an illegitimate child to care for her child. Consequently, the father alleged that the mother was doing no more than she was required by the public duty imposed upon her by law. HELD by the Court of Appeal: the majority of the court, while acknowledging that the mother did owe an existing duty, found 'ample consideration' for the promise in the mother's undertaking to keep the child happy and to allow her to choose where she wished to live. This was over and above her public duty to maintain the child.

Answer

Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

A promise by A to perform a pre-existing contractual duty owed to B (as opposed to the actual performance of that duty) as valid consideration for a promise made by C.

Answer

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

An agreement to do an act which the promisor is under an existing obligation to a third party to do, may quite well amount to valid consideration and does so in the present case: the promisee obtains the benefit of a direct obligation which he can enforce.

Answer

New Zealand Shipping Co v AM Satterthwaite & Co (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

It is also clear from the case itself that the tender of a different chattel at the request of the creditor could amount to fresh consideration. The chattel may totally replace the money owing or may be tendered along with a partial payment.

Answer

Sibree v Tripp (1846) 15 M & W 23

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

The Sibeon and The Sibotre

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

the shipping company waited eight months before protesting

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

In [case] Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress:
1. protest;
2. have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy;
3. acquire independent legal advice; and
4. take steps to avoid the new contract as soon as was possible?

Answer

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress: (4)

Answer

1. protest;
2. have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy;
3. acquire independent legal advice; and
4. take steps to avoid the new contract as soon as was possible?

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

FACTS: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition, the plaintiff's workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay demand was met. The plaintiff told the defendant that, unless the defendant paid an additional £4,500, the contract would be cancelled. The plaintiff made it clear that the amount to be paid was to be in addition to the contract price. The defendant paid the amount demanded by the plaintiff so as to get the contract performed: the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests. However, the defendant then deducted this figure from the contract price paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then claimed the balance. HELD by the Court of Appeal: Since the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests, they had no choice but to pay the sum demanded by the plaintiff and so it was paid under duress. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the extra £4,500 which the defendant had paid under economic duress. Importantly, the defendant acted sufficiently promptly by deducting the extra £4,500 from the contract price thereby avoiding the new agreement – contrast this with the actions of the ship owners in The Atlantic Baron [1979].

Answer

B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

The Universe Sentinel

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

what is threatened is in itself unlawful

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Here, the plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basketware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff's firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay the minimum charge and, when sued for the transport charges, lodged a claim of economic duress as a defence. It was held that, where a party has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.

Answer

Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641.
Here, the plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basketware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff's firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay the minimum charge and, when sued for the transport charges, lodged a claim of economic duress as a defence. It was held that, where a party [...], this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.

Answer

has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK) [2001] BLR 1

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] BLR 530

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

A contract could be avoided where there is a threat to seize the owner's property or to damage it. Like economic duress, the 'but for' test of causation will be applied.

Answer

The Siboen and The Sibotre

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

The effect of duress (whether it is duress to the person, economic duress or duress to goods) is to make the contract voidable and that the proper remedy is one of rescission.

Answer

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

The Siboen and the Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: In August 1970 the defendants, owners of two tankers, chartered them to the plaintiffs for three years at a rate of 4.40 USD per ton per month. In 1971 the defendants were informed that the plaintiffs had no substantial assets, had suffered enormous losses, were dependent upon a third party’s support for survival and that the third party was willing to let them go into liquidation if the hire rates were not reduced. These statements were untrue. In August 1972 the defendants signed addenda (variation agreements) to the charterparties that the hire rate would be reduced substantially and then after a further dispute the hire price was further reduced. Some time later, the defendant discovered that the plaintiffs were making substantial profits on the vessels. The defendants gave the plaintiffs the option to revert to the original hire rate or of cancelling the charters. When the plaintiffs refused both options the defendants withdrew the vessels in May 1973. The plaintiffs claimed damages from the defendants on the ground that the vessels had been wrongfully withdrawn. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to the rescission of the addenda on the ground of fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation or duress. The court found that the plaintiffs were liable for fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation but that although the defendants were acting under pressure when they signed the addenda this was not such coercion as to amount to duress.

Answer

Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v Skibs A/s Avanti, Skibs A/s Glarona, Skibs A/s Navalis (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: By a shipbuilding contract the builders agreed to build a tanker for the owners, for $30,950,000 payable in five instalments. The contract required the builders to open a reverse letter of credit for the repayment of instalments in the event of their default. After the first instalment had been paid, the dollar was devalued and the builders threatened not to deliver unless the remaining instalments were increased by 10 per cent. The owners were advised that there was no legal basis for the claim, but were anxious that they might lose a favourable charter with Shell if the ship were not finished on time, and in a telex dated 28 June 1973, they agreed to the increased payments, ‘to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights.’ The builders did this and delivered the tanker; the owners took delivery without protest. Some eight months later the owners claimed the return of the 10 per cent extra. It was suggested that they did not seek the return of the money sooner because they were concerned about the delivery of a sister ship (The Atlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that the shipping company waited eight months before taking any action, meant they had affirmed it.

Answer

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705
Facts: By a shipbuilding contract the builders agreed to build a tanker for the owners, for $30,950,000 payable in five instalments. The contract required the builders to open a reverse letter of credit for the repayment of instalments in the event of their default. After the first instalment had been paid, the dollar was devalued and the builders threatened not to deliver unless the remaining instalments were increased by 10 per cent. The owners were advised that there was no legal basis for the claim, but were anxious that they might lose a favourable charter with Shell if the ship were not finished on time, and in a telex dated 28 June 1973, they agreed to the increased payments, ‘to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights.’ The builders did this and delivered the tanker; the owners took delivery without protest. Some eight months later the owners claimed the return of the 10 per cent extra. It was suggested that they did not seek the return of the money sooner because they were concerned about the delivery of a sister ship (The Atlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that the shipping company waited [...] before taking any action, meant they had affirmed it.

Answer

eight months

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The plaintiff’s ship was ‘blacked’ by a trade union, ITF and was unable to leave port as a consequence. In order to secure its release the plaintiff owner agreed, amongst other things, to pay the sum of $6,480 to ITWF’s welfare fund. The ship was allowed to leave after making this and other concessions and the owners sought to recover the money paid to the fund on the grounds that it had been paid under duress. The question the House of Lords had to consider was whether the action of ‘blacking’ the ship fell within the definition of a ‘trade dispute’ under The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. If it did, the ITWF were protected from court action. It was held that the demand for payment into the welfare fund was not connected with a ‘trade dispute’ and therefore the action of ‘blacking’ the ship to this end was illegitimate. Consequently, the agreement was deemed to have been brought about by economic duress and was set aside.

Answer

Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia Appellants v International Transport Workers Federation and Others Respondents HL (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: Petroleum Geo Services ('PGS') engaged DSND Subsea Limited ('DSND'), a professional diving operation, to carry out works in the North Sea constructing subsea structures. The contract was based on an assumption that the risers (pipes used to transfer produced fluids from the seabed to the surface facilities or lift gas), would have already been installed by PGS. DSND was to have full responsibility for the rest of the subsea system. Later, it transpired that the risers would have to be installed after the subsea system was in place. DSND was concerned about several issues and in particular, about the insurance that was in place. They thought that they would not be covered if they proceeded with the installation without further changes to the insurance and refused to continue with the work. Eventually, a memorandum of understanding ('MOU') and a memorandum of agreement ('MOA') were entered into which set out various changes to DSND’s payment and acknowledged that the risers were to be installed after the subsea system which brought DSND within insurance cover. After the risers were installed, PGS then informed DSND the contract was terminated on the basis of DSND's 'serious breach of contract'. PGS argued that both the MOU and MOA should be set aside for economic duress. The economic duress point was considered as a preliminary issue by the court.

Answer

DSND Subsea Limited (Formerly known as DSND Oceantech Limited) v Petroleum Geo Services ASA, PGS Offshore Technology AS [2000] BLR 530

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: Mitras had agreed to be Adam Opel’s sole supplier in the United Kingdom of bumper mounts for a particular model of van that Adam Opel manufactured. Adam Opel gave notice to Mitras that the contract would be terminated. Mitras then threatened to suspend supplies immediately unless it was paid compensation, comprising an increased price for each bumper, payment of certain development costs incurred by Mitras and the reversal of price concessions agreed at the start of the contract. Eventually Adam Opel agreed to Mitras’s terms in order to ensure continued supply. Once the final bumper had been supplied, Adam Opel claimed recovery of the monies paid to Mitras under the compensation agreement. Opel submitted that the agreement was unenforceable because it had been made under duress and because there had been no consideration for it. Mitras argued that its claim to compensation was made in good faith, being based on a genuine belief that it was entitled to it. Judgment was given for Adam Opel. The agreement had been made under economic duress.

Answer

Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd Costs [2007] EWHC 3481 (QB)

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

A threat to breach contract may constitute duress.

Answer

B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition the plaintiff’s workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay demand was met. The plaintiff told the defendant that unless the defendant paid an additional £4,500 the contract would be cancelled. The plaintiff made it clear that the amount to be paid was to be in addition to the contract price. The defendant paid the amount demanded as the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests. At the end of the contract, the defendant deducted the £4,500 from the contract price. The plaintiff claimed the balance. It was held that the plaintiff had agreed to make the extra payment under duress.

Answer

B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basket ware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff’s firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising of only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff sued and the defendant argued economic duress as a defence. It was held that where a party has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.

Answer

Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigarettes worth £17,000 due to be delivered was stolen from a warehouse and there was a disagreement about which party bore the risk. It later became clear that the risk was in fact with Gallaher but before this a representative of Gallaher informed CTN that if CTN did not the pay the £17,000 all credit facilities would be withdrawn. CTN decided that paying was the lesser of two evils. CTN later sought to recover the money paid on the grounds of economic duress. It was held that the threat to remove credit facilities was coercive but not improper. The defendants were using the threat as a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due.

Answer

CTN Cash and Carry Limited v Gallaher Limited [1994] 4 All ER 714

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The plaintiffs carried on the business of a garage and petrol filling station. In 1969 the plaintiffs were in financial difficulties and subject to a contract whereby they had to accept petrol supplies exclusively from the defendants. Contrary to the independent advice of their solicitors, the plaintiffs entered into a transaction with the defendants whereby the plaintiffs granted a lease of their property to the defendants at a peppercorn rent plus a lump sum of £35,000, representing the market value of the lease. As part of the agreement, the defendants granted a lease-back of the property to the plaintiffs for 21 years at a rent of £2,250 per annum, subject to a right to terminate after seven or fourteen years and requiring the plaintiffs to accept all the petrol for their business from the defendants. With the plaintiffs' concurrence the defendants converted the property into a self-service filling station at a cost of £19,000. In 1979, the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the transaction was voidable for duress (amongst other claims). It was held that there was no duress.

Answer

Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. and Others v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd. [1983] 1 WLR 87

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The defendant was a member of 22 SAS Regiment. His squadron was told that all members who wanted to remain in the regiment would be required to sign confidentiality contracts, failing which they would be returned to unit ('RTU'). Involuntary RTU was normally imposed as a penalty for some disciplinary offence or on the ground of professional unsuitability for the SAS. It involved exclusion from the social life of the regiment and loss of its higher rates of pay. The defendant asked a colleague whether he could obtain legal advice on the contract and had been told that he could not. He signed the contract. The defendant later left the army and entered into a contract with a publisher to publish his story. As a result the Attorney-General commenced proceedings in New Zealand for breach of contract, claiming an injunction, damages and an account of profits. In his defence the defendant pleaded amongst other things that he had signed the contract under military orders and that it had been obtained by duress. It was held that the threat of RTU was lawful and justifiable as anyone unwilling to accept the obligation of confidentiality was unsuitable for the SAS in any event.

Answer

R v Attorney General of England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22, [2003] EMLR 24

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: Under the terms of a contract by which Cremer was to deliver wheat to Huyton, Huyton was required to pay Cremer on presentation of documents in a particular form. Huyton accepted delivery of the goods but his bank refused to make payment to Cremer on the basis that the documents were not in the approved form. Before going to arbitration, the matter was resolved by Huyton agreeing to pay Cremer on condition that Cremer gave up its claims to various shipping expenses that Cremer would normally have been able to claim back from Huyton. Cremer later contended that it had entered into the agreement on grounds of economic duress. It was held that even if Cremer could show illegitimate pressure (which was doubted) it could not show that the pressure was a significant cause of its entering into the agreement. There was therefore no duress.

Answer

Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

If the promisee is simply performing his existing contractual obligations, then this will not constitute consideration for a promise to pay more

Answer

Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Campbell 317, 170 ER 1168

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

If, on the other hand, the promisee goes over and above his existing contractual obligations, then this will constitute good consideration

Answer

Hartley v Ponsonby 7 Ellis and Blackburn 872, 119 ER 1471

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

If certain criteria are met, performance of existing contractual obligations will constitute good consideration provided the promisor obtains a practical benefit or obviates a disbenefit.

Answer

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Williams v Roffey

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

received a practical benefit

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Remember that the law will not look into whether the chattel is of equal monetary value to the sum which was previously owed since consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

Answer

Chappell & Co Limited and Another v Nestlé Co Limited and Another [1960] AC 87

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Pinnel’s Case

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: Woodhouse (the appellant buyers) purchased cocoa from the respondent sellers (Nigerian Produce) and the price was to be paid in Nigerian pounds in Lagos. The buyers then asked, by letter, if the sellers would agree to accept sterling in Lagos. The sellers agreed, by letter dated 30 September 1967, that payment could be made 'in sterling and in Lagos'. The pound sterling was then devalued so that it was worth less than the Nigerian pound. The buyers claimed that they could pay one pound sterling to one Nigerian pound. The sellers disagreed. One of the arguments raised by the buyers was that the representation contained in the letter dated 30 September 1967 amounted to an estoppel meaning that the sellers could not go back on it and claim the full price for the contracts.
The letter did not unambiguously state that the price to be paid would be Nigerian pounds for pounds sterling. In order to give rise to an estoppel a promise must be clear and unequivocal. The letter amounted only to a representation that the seller would accept payment in pounds sterling, rather than the Nigerian pound, to the same value as had been agreed. Lord Hailsham LC in particular made it plain that, if a promise would be insufficiently clear to vary the contract, such a promise could not be sufficiently clear to found the defence of promissory estoppel.

Answer

Woodhouse A.C Israel Cocoa Limited S.A and Another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Limited [1972] AC 741

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

The Post Chaser

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Answer

so little time had elapsed since they had made their representation

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: The sellers agreed to sell palm oil to the buyers, who agreed to sell this on to the sub-buyers. A clause in the agreement required that a ‘declaration of ship’ was to be made to the buyers in writing as soon as possible after the ship sailed. Despite the fact that the sellers did not give the declaration until more than a month after the ship sailed, the buyers raised no objection to this. The buyers requested that the sellers provide the documents to the sub-buyers. Two days later, the sub-buyers rejected the documents and, that same day, the buyers also rejected the documents. The sellers had to sell the oil to another for less than the price the buyers had agreed to pay. The sellers brought an action against the buyers for the difference in the two prices.
It is therefore clear that it is not a requirement that the promisee has been prejudiced by altering his position. However, it is an essential part of the doctrine that it should be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise and enforce the strict contractual obligations.

Answer

Societe Italo-Belge pour le Commerce et l’Industrie SA v Palm and Vegetable Oils (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (The Post Chaser) [1982] 1 All ER 19

Tags

#consideration #contract

Question

Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced financial difficulties, offered £300 in settlement of the debt stating that if that were not accepted nothing would be paid. The builders accepted and Mrs Rees provided them with a cheque and in return, at her request, the builders provided a receipt containing the words ‘received the sum of £300 from Mr Rees in completion of the account. ...’ The builders later sued for the balance. The court considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by reason of a settlement having been reached.
Mr Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel because of the pressure his wife placed on the builders to accept the lesser payment. In these circumstances it was not inequitable to allow the builders to go back on the promise to accept less since it had not been freely given. To allow the debtor to rely on the doctrine in such circumstances would be contrary to the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must come with clean hands'.

Answer

D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

signed writing

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

outside

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

LPA, s 53(1)(c)

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

s 53(1)(b)

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Rose [1952] Ch 499

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Mr Rose had done everything in his power to vest the shares in the transferees

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Mascall v Mascall (1985) 50 P & CR 119

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

the transfer and other documents must either have been sent off for registration or delivered to the donee or his agent

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

to put it out of the donor’s power to change his mind

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

an intention to make a gift in the future

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Stewart

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Tweddle v Atkinson

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

constructive trust

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Bogusz

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

it is delivered, even without being endorsed

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

he had not handed over the share certificate

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

sufficient intention on the part of Constance to make himself a trustee of the money in the account

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Milroy v Lord

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

writing

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

LPA 1925, s 136

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Cole [1964] Ch 175

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

the transferor intending to transfer them

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

LPA, s 53(1)(c)

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

may enforce the term in their own right

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

it appears the parties did not intend this

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

s 1(2)

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

there was a valid dmc of the house, by constructive delivery of the title deeds

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

give effect to imperfect gifts

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

an assurance, reliance and detriment

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Re Fry [1948] Ch 312

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

equity will not assist

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Milroy v Lord

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

render the settlement binding upon him

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Shah v Shah [2010] EWCA Civ 1408

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

transfer of legal title took effect by registration of the donee

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11

Tags

#constitution #equity #law

Question

Answer

he had not intended to declare a trust but to make an outright gift