• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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. 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

  2. The Doctrine of Frustration

    paid, and, in the case of sums so payable, cease to be so payable: Provided that, if the party to whom were so paid or payable incurred expenses before the time of discharge in, or for the purpose of, the performance of the contract, the court may, if it considers

  1. Discuss the development of doctrine of frustration regard to the law of contact

    If this is true, most of the frustrating event happened before the completion of the service, which mean basically there is no benefit at all, this would radically make this provision inapplicable. Another situation is where the service is destructed or depreciated by the frustrating event, there will be no benefit being conferred and thus no award.

  2. Proprietory estoppel

    Reliance To rely on promissory estoppel, the promisee must have relied on the promise made by the promisor. Traditionally, it is seem that the promisee must have been induced by the promise to act on his detriment.27 The current law now for promissory estoppel to operate is just to show

  1. Williams v. Roffey and Foakes v. Beer

    Performance, ex hypothesi, comes too late to qualify"9. Moreover, as Birks argues10 , construing the first two reasons as something additional is only possible if one takes the Holmesian11 view that a contract party has an option to perform or to pay damages and not perform.

  2. Promissory estoppel is a necessary supplement to the doctrine of consideration, because it enables ...

    However, this promise was unsupported by consideration. Post-war, the property market settled and the flats were fully let. The claimants demanded that the defendants resume payment of the entire rent from 1945 but the defendants refused. Denning J held that using promissory estoppel, the claimants were entitled to full rent from the post-war period.

  1. 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

  2. The doctrine of frustration should not be lightly invoked... DIscuss

    to compromise it as well which can affect the limits of frustration and possibly force it to be invoked in a wider manner. It is also vital to understand the case of Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two)[11], in which Bingham expressed the opinion of this discussion.

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