• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What is the Doctrine of Consideration? Explain its relationship to theEquitable Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Extracts from this document...


Phillip Stylianides Group 19 Contract LAWS 1009 Formative Assignment. Q: What is the Doctrine of Consideration? Explain its relationship to the Equitable Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Consideration can be seen as, that which one party gives or promises to give in exchange for the others parties performance or their promise to future performance. The classic definition of consideration was given by the court of first instance in the 1875 case of Currie v Misa1 "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given suffered or undertaken by the other." Therefore some kind of benefit and detriment to the involved parties must be present in order for good consideration to have occurred. For example if you go to buy a pint of lager you pay for the lager and the barman gives you your pint. You have lost money but gained the pint of lager and the barman has lost the pint of lager but gained the money you paid. Here we can see that if there is good consideration then some degree of reciprocity has been fulfilled. As mentioned in the opening line consideration does not have to be immediate and may be a promise of future performance. Consideration may therefore be executed, where one party performs "an act in fulfilment of a promise made by the other" or executory "where there is an exchange of ...read more.


AC 87, however it must be of some economic value White v Bluett (1853). The next two sets of rules state that a promise of performance to which you are already bound either through existing legal duties Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B&Ad 950 or through an existing contractual obligation with the promisee is not good consideration. Stilk v Myrick (1809)6 The exception to these rules is a promise that exceeds ones original duty under the law or under the contract to the promisee can be found to be good consideration. Ward v Byham (1956) 2 All E.R. 348 and Pinnel's case (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 117a resectively. There are a number of other rulings under the banner of existing contractual duty that must be noted. Where a promisor asks for more funds to perform an existing duty. From previous examples the general ruling would be that the promisor is not entitled to claim extra that has been demanded. However if as in the case of Williams v Roffey (1990) the promisee obtains an extra benefit or avoids a detriment from the performance of the promise, even if the promisor was already bound under the existing contract this can be considered good consideration. In Williams v Roffey the Court of Appeal ruled that because the promisee had escaped the detriment of late completion penalties and the detriment of not having to find another subcontractor they had in effect received a practical benefit and Williams was therefore entitled to claim the additional sum. ...read more.


This can be seen in the case of CLP v High Trees Hous Ltd (1947) and also Tool Metal V Tungsen (1955.) In both cases the parties were required to give reasonable notice before obtaining their entitlement. Finally it is widely accepted that unlike consideration, Promissory Estoppel cannot be used to form a contract but only enforces promises to vary existing contracts. Therefore it cannot create a new cause of action. Combe v Combe (1951) 2 KB 215 However this has been challenged in the Australian case Waltons Stores Ltd. V Maher (1988.) The ruling in this case in effect showed that Promissory Estoppel can extend to "the enforcement of voluntary obligations."10 Promissory Estoppel allows the principles of natural justice to be applied in order to mitigate some of the harsh effects of common law rules11 that may have been inapplicable if relying upon the doctrine of consideration. 1 Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 2 Nutshells contract law 6th Ed R Duxbury P 18-19. 3 Prof Atiyah (1986c) 4 Pao On v Lau Yui Long (1979) [1980] A.C. 614 5 Dr E Laurie LAWS 1009 2003/4 lecture handout No. 3 6 Stilk v Myrick 1809 170 All E.R. Rep. 851. 7 Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 8 RE Selectmove (1995) 2 All ER 531 (CA) 9 Dr E Laurie 2003/2004 Handout No 3 10 Dr E Laurie 2003/2004 Handout No 3 11 Dr E Laurie 2003/2004 Handout No 3 1 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Contract Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Contract Law essays

  1. Proprietory estoppel

    that the promisee had 'altered his position' in reliance of the promise. In W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd v El Nasr Export & Import Co.,28 Lord Denning had interpreted 'altered his position' to mean that the promisee 'must have been led to act differently from what he otherwise would have

  2. Promissory Estoppel

    Nevertheless, it was argued that this limitation would not be viable since estoppel may be able to assist in establishing the necessary condition for both the cause of action and a defence to thrive.9 Estoppel, maybe except the "proprietary estoppel", was never being accepted for cause of action in any

  1. Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword

    Foakes was in financial difficulty, and so Beer did not include any interest on the amount owed. Foakes made the payments as agreed without any interest but later Beer sues Foakes for the interest. In this case the Court of Appeal found in favour of Beer and Foakes was required to pay the interest on the money owed.

  2. Williams v. Roffey and Foakes v. Beer

    the doctrine; benefit would merge with motive, and consideration would become a meaningless criterion of enforceability. To deal with this, courts could impose a substantive limit, excluding benefits of a purely sentimental nature or requiring that the benefit be of a commercial nature or conferred in a commercial context.

  1. Explain the role of consideration to what extent do you agree with Lord Goff's ...

    D argued that P had not provided fresh consideration for the debt. It was held that P was entitled to the money because there was no consideration. Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 850 Mr Thomas died, Mrs Thomas paid £1 a year to his executors to live in the house for the rest of her life.

  2. "Intention to create legal relations could be used to replace the doctrine of consideration. ...

    Professor B.A.Hepple claims that there is no need of a separate requirement of intention, and that a bargain, involving mutuality is sufficient. These views are not generally accepted as it is widely agreed that identifying the parties' intentions is essential to the role of the courts when establishing if a contract was made.13 (mf...)

  1. "The rigid application of the Rule in Pinnel's Case has frequently caused hardship. ...

    acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but

  2. Explain how the doctrine of consideration relates to the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

    In other words, the creditor could not go back on a promise to not to enforce payment of the whole sum where the promise had been relied upon? (Poole, Textbook on Contract Law, 2012, p. 145). There are 5 requirements for promissory estoppel to be adhered to in order for

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work