Contracts - week 2
Consideration
I cried because I had no shoes, 'till I met a man who had no feet. So I said, 'You got any shoes you're not using?' ~ Steven Wright
2
Consideration Defining Consideration
some act or forbearance involving legal detriment to the promisee, or the promise of such an act or forbearance, furnished by the promisee as the agreed price of the promise.
Detriment Bargain
3
Consideration
Must flow both ways:
consideration
consideration
A B
4
Consideration
Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth AWM claimed unilateral contract
Cth promised to pay subsidy AWM purchased wool
The purchase of wool not good consideration - not done at request of promisee
No quid pro quo - ‘this for that’
5
Consideration
A promises B - ‘I will pay you $1000 on your arrival in Sydney’
B travels to Sydney Has B provided consideration? - No No quid pro quo unless A requested it Conditional gift. Travel to Sydney is the
condition.
6
Consideration
A promises B - ‘I will pay you $1000 on your arrival in Sydney’
B travels to Sydney because he needs money - airfare costs him $250
No consideration Reliance on promise and detriment May be estoppel
7
Consideration
1. Must be given on request of promisor2. Must move from the promisee3. Must be sufficient4. Need not be adequate5. Must not be illusory6. Past Consideration is No Consideration7. Promise to Perform an Existing Duty is Not
Consideration
8
Consideration
Must be given on request of promisor Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth
9
Consideration Must move from the promisee
Price v Easton Contract between Def and X. Defendant promised to
pay Plaintiff for work performed by X. No consideration moved from Plaintiff as promisee Plaintiff unable to sue
Joint Promisees Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Mr and Mrs Coulls joint promisees No consideration given by her But consideration given on behalf of both and therefore
moved from both.
10
Consideration
Consideration must be sufficient Consideration need not be adequate Threshold - must be something the law
recognises as having value (sufficient) Whether the price is fair or equivalent
(adequate) is not relevant May be ‘nominal’ - eg peppercorn rent
11
Consideration Woolworths v Kelly Justice Kirby provides three reasons for the
‘sufficiency’ rule:1. The courts cannot assess the value which an
individual might ascribe to something. It is a subjective assessment.
2. If courts were empowered to decide whether a bargain was fair, then this would make enforcement of contracts uncertain.
3. The rule protects economic freedom
12
Consideration Chappel v Nestle
Consideration for record - 1s 6d and 3 wrappers Are the wrappers part of the consideration? No intrinsic
value. No direct benefit to Nestle ‘It is said that when received the wrappers are of no
value to Nestle. This I would have thought irrelevant. A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn.’ - Lord Somervell of Harrow
13
Consideration Must not be illusory
Unfettered discretion Placer Development v Commonwealth Promise to pay subsidy ‘of an amount or at a rate
determined by the Commonwealth from time to time No obligation
Uncertain or unenforceable Love and affection White v Bluett - Promise by son not to ‘bore his father
with complaints’ Dunton - promise by wife to conduct herself with
sobriety and in a respectable, orderly and virtuous manner.
14
Consideration
Past Consideration is No Consideration Roscorla v Thomas Contract for sale of horse After purchase, plaintiff asked for a guarantee
that horse was not vicious Horse was vicious Guarantee was not supported by consideration
- price had been paid under earlier contract
15
Consideration
Actual photo of vicious horse from Roscorla v Thomas
16
Consideration Promise to pay for past services Exception to the ‘past consideration’ rule
Lampleigh v Braithwaite Re Casey’s Patents; Stewart v Casey the later promise to pay is interpreted ‘either as
an admission which evidences or as a positive bargain which fixes the amount of that reasonable remuneration on the faith of which the service was originally rendered.’ - Bowen LJ
17
Consideration A Promise to Perform an Existing Duty is
Not Good Consideration General Rule Part Payment of a Debt Exceptions to the General Rule
Fresh Consideration Compromise and Forbearance to Sue Practical Benefit Promises Made to Third Parties Termination and Replacement
18
Consideration A Promise to Perform an Existing Duty is Not
Good Consideration - General Rule May be a public duty or a private (eg contractual)
duty Glasbrook v Glamorgan
Provision of 70 extra police to colliery during coal miner’s strike - agreement to pay
Not within the scope of the existing duty, so there was good consideration
Promise to give evidence - promisor had been subpoenaed
19
Consideration Pre-existing Contract between parties Stilk v Myrick
Promise to pay extra wages to crew of ship after 2 shipmates deserted
Original contract included emergency situations No consideration for promise to pay extra
Hartley v Ponsonby Similar facts, but almost half the crew had deserted Court found the voyage was dangerous - not covered
by existing duty There was consideration for the promise to pay extra
20
Consideration
Ship from disputed voyage of Stilk v Myrick
21
Consideration Part Payment of a Debt Pinnel’s Case - 1602 Part payment of a debt is not good consideration
for a promise by the creditor not to sue for the balance.
Foakes v Beer - affirmed the rule Doesn’t sit well with commercial reality Estoppel might be relevant
22
Consideration
Exceptions to the General Rule Fresh Consideration Compromise and Forbearance to Sue Practical Benefit Promises Made to Third Parties Termination and Replacement
23
Consideration
Fresh Consideration Glasbrook v Glamorgan Hartley v Ponsonby Pinnel’s Case
Lord Blackburn ‘the gift of a horse, hawk or robe, etc might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than money’
i.e. a change in the mode of payment or the nature of the promise may transform it into fresh consideration
24
Consideration Compromise and Forbearance to Sue
An agreement in settlement of a disputed claim might include a promise to perform the obligations required under the disputed contract
Recognised as good consideration Wigan v Edwards Compromise must be bona fide Claim need not be legally valid - as long as
promisee genuinely believes it is valid.
25
Consideration Practical Benefit
Williams v Roffey Bros Contract to renovate 27 flats for payment of £20,000 Plaintiff unable to finish Def offered extra payment of £575 per flat Plaintiff renovated 8 more flats, then abandoned work Plaintiff sued for payment - had done less than
promised under original contract Court upheld contract Consideration was ‘practical benefit’ to Def
Rule is in contradiction to the general rule
26
Consideration Williams v Roffey Bros, Glidewell J(i) If A has entered into a contract with B to do work for, or to
supply goods or services to, B in return for payment by B; and(ii) At some stage before A has completely performed his
obligations under the contract B has reason to doubt whether A will, or will be able to, complete his side of the bargain; and
(iii) B thereupon promises A an additional payment in return for A’s promise o perform his contractual obligations on time; and
(iv) As a result of giving his promise, B obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit; and
o B’s promise is not given as a result of economic duress or fraud on the part of A; then
o The benefit to B is capable of being consideration for B’s promise, so that the promise will be legally binding
27
Consideration Musumeci v Winadell, NSW Ct of Appeal Three reasons to keep the rule
1. The rule could be exploited to allow a party to extort a promise for more money by threatening to breach their existing contract unless they are paid more.
2. The promisee (ie the party that asks for more money) suffers no legal detriment – they are just doing what they have already promised to do under the original contract.
n Abandoning the doctrine of the ‘existing duty’ rule undermines the meaning of consideration. ‘if these matters are capable of being regarded as consideration the reality is that the existing duty rule no longer applies, for in every case these types of benefits will be present… Indeed, it is because contracting parties regard such matters as benefits that the argument can be made that [the] existing rule should be abolished.’
28
Consideration Musumeci v Winadell, NSW Ct of Appeal Answers to these three reasons:
1. Law of duress provides a remedy for extortion, but need to provide for lesser unfair pressure. See amendment to Glidewell’s criteria 5.
2. The fact that the promisee extends a concession evidences the fact that the practical benefit means more than damages would. This is sufficient to count as good consideration
3. The rule is able to distinguish between wholly gratuitous promises, and promises which are given because the promisor obtains this kind of practical benefit.
29
Consideration Musumeci v Winadell(i) If A has entered into a contract with B to do work for, or to
supply goods or services to, B in return for payment by B; and(ii) At some stage before A has completely performed his
obligations under the contract B has reason to doubt whether A will, or will be able to, complete his side of the bargain; and
(iii) B thereupon promises A an additional payment in return for A’s promise to perform his contractual obligations on time; and
30
Consideration Musumeci v Winadell(iv) (a) As a result of giving his promise, B obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates
a disbenefit, provided that A’s performance having regard to what has been so obtained is capable of being viewed by B as worth more to B than any remedy against A (allowing for any defences or cross claims) taking into account the cost to B of any such payment or concession to obtain greater assurance of A’s performance; or(b) As a result of giving his promise A suffers in practice a detriment (or obviates a benefit), provided that A is thereby foregoing the opportunity of not performing the original contract in circumstances where such non performance, taking into account B’s likely remedy against A (and allowing for any defences or cross-claims) is being capable of being viewed by A as worth more to A than performing that contract, in the absence of B’s promised payment or concession to A; and
(iv) B’s promise is not given as a result of economic duress or fraud, or undue influence or unconscionable conduct on the part of A nor is it induced otherwise by unfair pressure on the part of A, having regard to the circumstances; then
(v) The benefit to B is capable of being consideration for B’s promise, so that the promise will be legally binding
31
Consideration Promise to a third party
Shadwell v Shadwell Promise by plaintiff to def that plaintiff would marry his
fiancee. Already under contractual duty to fiancee
The Eurymedon Pao On v Lau Yiu Long ‘The promisee obtains the benefit of a direct obligation
which he can enforce.’
32
Consideration
Termination and Replacement General rule often arises when parties try to
modify existing agreement in a way that directly benefits only one party
Parties can terminate original agreement Enter into new contract