Consideration Cases

Question 1 of 1

Time Left

Match the case to its facts

Match the text (click and drag)

(0/0)

Match the text
Roscorla v Thomas [1842]
Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615]
Pao On v Lao Yiu Long [1980]
Chappell v Nestle [1960]
White v Bluett [1853]
Collins v Godefroy [1831]
Ward v Byham [1956]
Shadwell v Shadwell [1860]
Stylk v Myrick [1809]
Williams v Roffey [1990]
Pinnel [1602]
Foakes v Beer [1884]
Re Selectmove [1995]
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947]
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway [1877]
D&C Builders v Rees [1965]
Combe v Combe [1951]
Collier v P and MJ Wright [2008]
Walton Stores v Maher [1988]
Baird Textile Holdings v M&S [2001]

Click and drag
Case involving tenant having to do up house but also nogotiating for sale of it
Debtor pays part of debt but is sued for remainder of it
D kills a man and promises money to C after he secures a pardon
C has sold clothes to D for over 30 years when orders stop
Payment plan agreed on for court fees that doesn't take into account interest
Agreement made on part payment for debt split between three men
While noegotiating sale of land, encourages other party to begin demolition while keeping options open
D contractor, C sub-contactor. C running late and promised extra money by D for completion
Father lends son money, saying he need not repay it if he stops complaining. F dies and s is sued by executor of estate to repay.
Tax case in which company wanted to pay debts in installments
Parents split, father agrees to pay maintenance to mother for daughter, but wants to stop when she remarries
D offers to pay C for testimony but C called to testify in court anyway
Couple try and not pay builders full due
Husband says he will pay wife £100 but changes his mind
Seller promises a vicious horse is sound after concluding the sale
Man engaged and uncle promises to pay £150 a year.
Copyright case looking at whether or not a company handing out record in exchange for money and wrappers had violated copyright by not mentioning wrappers
Owner of flats agrees to let leaseholder pay reduced rent during ww2
Crew desert and captain promises the other crew members their pay
Complex case concerning sale of shares

Click and drag
Promissory estoppel may prevent the promisor from reneging on a promise that the promisee has relied upon
A promise to pay more is only valid with fresh consideration
Fulfilling a public duty cannot count as consideration
Pre-existing duty can count as consideration for a third party
Consideration must be sufficient, not adequate
There can be an implied promise before an actual offer
Equity recognises an implied promise a party has relied upon to their detriment
Both parties must act equitably in order to call upon promissory estoppel
Promissory estoppel still cannot be used to create claims in English law
A promise to pay less is only valid with fresh consideration
Confirmed payment of whole sum not equal to paying part of sum
Not doing something you don't have a right to do anyway is not sufficient consideration
Australian case saying promissory estoppel can be used to create a claim
Practical benefit can count as fresh consideration
Promissory estoppel cannot create claims
There is a difference between contracts varied where more is promised for the same and where less is accepted than promised. The former is bound by Roffey, the latter by Foakes
Promise is implied if promisor requested action, implied it would be paid for,adn it wouldh\ve been enforceable if made beforeact
Obiter comments suggesting automatic application of promissory estoppel if agreement is reached between parties for lesser payment
Going beyond a public duty can count as consideration
Consideration cannot be past

Consideration Cases

Question 1 of 1

Time Left

Match the case to its facts

Match the text (click and drag)

(0/0)

Roscorla v Thomas [1842]

Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615]

Pao On v Lao Yiu Long [1980]

Chappell v Nestle [1960]

White v Bluett [1853]

Collins v Godefroy [1831]

Ward v Byham [1956]

Shadwell v Shadwell [1860]

Stylk v Myrick [1809]

Williams v Roffey [1990]

Pinnel [1602]

Foakes v Beer [1884]

Re Selectmove [1995]

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947]

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway [1877]

D&C Builders v Rees [1965]

Combe v Combe [1951]

Collier v P and MJ Wright [2008]

Walton Stores v Maher [1988]

Baird Textile Holdings v M&S [2001]

Case involving tenant having to do up house but also nogotiating for sale of it

Debtor pays part of debt but is sued for remainder of it

D kills a man and promises money to C after he secures a pardon

C has sold clothes to D for over 30 years when orders stop

Payment plan agreed on for court fees that doesn't take into account interest

Agreement made on part payment for debt split between three men

While noegotiating sale of land, encourages other party to begin demolition while keeping options open

D contractor, C sub-contactor. C running late and promised extra money by D for completion

Father lends son money, saying he need not repay it if he stops complaining. F dies and s is sued by executor of estate to repay.

Tax case in which company wanted to pay debts in installments

Parents split, father agrees to pay maintenance to mother for daughter, but wants to stop when she remarries

D offers to pay C for testimony but C called to testify in court anyway

Couple try and not pay builders full due

Husband says he will pay wife £100 but changes his mind

Seller promises a vicious horse is sound after concluding the sale

Man engaged and uncle promises to pay £150 a year.

Copyright case looking at whether or not a company handing out record in exchange for money and wrappers had violated copyright by not mentioning wrappers

Owner of flats agrees to let leaseholder pay reduced rent during ww2

Crew desert and captain promises the other crew members their pay

Complex case concerning sale of shares

Match the case to its point of law

Match the text (click and drag)

(0/0)

Roscorla v Thomas [1842]

Lampleigh v Braithwait [1615]

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]

Chappell v Nestle [1960]

White v Bluett [1853]

Collins v Godefroy [1831]

Ward v Byham [1956]

Shadwell v Shadwell [1860]

Stilk v Myrick [1809]

Williams v Roffey [1990]

Pinnel's Case [1602]

Foaks v Beer [1884]

Re Selectmove [1995]

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947]

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway [1877]

D&C Builders v Rees [1965]

Combe v Combe [1951]

Collier v P&MJ Wright [2008]

Walton Stores v Maher [1988]

Baird Textile Holdings v M&S [2001]

Promissory estoppel may prevent the promisor from reneging on a promise that the promisee has relied upon

A promise to pay more is only valid with fresh consideration

Fulfilling a public duty cannot count as consideration

Pre-existing duty can count as consideration for a third party

Consideration must be sufficient, not adequate

There can be an implied promise before an actual offer

Equity recognises an implied promise a party has relied upon to their detriment

Both parties must act equitably in order to call upon promissory estoppel

Promissory estoppel still cannot be used to create claims in English law

A promise to pay less is only valid with fresh consideration

Confirmed payment of whole sum not equal to paying part of sum