consider the particular problems that this may raise, e.g. the need to
finish on time for the summer holiday trade.- Identify the general issue of privity and/or consideration moving from
the promisee – Tweddle v Atkinson, Dunlop v Selfridge. - Apply the law on privity and/or consideration moving from the
promisee to the facts of the problem, i.e. the payment to Mariner. - Consider the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and conclude
that it does not apply here.
Question 3- Introduce the general need for consideration and define it.
- Show that it must be sufficient, even if not adequate – Thomas v
Thomas, Chapple v NestlÎ_, Bainbridge v Firmstone. - Consideration: must not be vague – White v Bluett; must move from the
promisee – Tweddle v Atkinson; must not be past – Roscorla v Thomas,
Re McArdle, Lampleigh v Braithwait, Re Casey’s Patents; may be in the
form of forbearance to sue – Haigh v Brooks; and it must not be illegal- Foster v Driscoll.
- Discuss existing duty and doing more than the existing duty – Collins
v Godefroy, Stilk v Myrick, - Part-payment of a debt – Pinnel’s Case, High Trees, etc.
Question 4
The Question is again about the nature of consideration, but you need to
respond to the quotation. It would be a good idea to define consideration using
the definitions from Dunlop v Selfridge so that you can explain benefit and
detriment, and Currie v Misa, so that you can explain the idea of bargaining.- Explain sufficiency and adequacy.
- Explain consideration moving from the promisee and the link with
privity. - Include some other rules on consideration, especially consideration not
being vague or in the past. - Discuss situations where there is very little, or no, consideration:
promissory estoppel, Williams v Roffey. - Conclude, referring back to the quotation.
Question 5
This is a narrower area of consideration, so you should know the facts and
cases in detail.Answers guide 295CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 295