- Explain, very briefly, the need for consideration. Outline the rule in
Pinnel’s Case (and Foakes v Beer), and show that generally part-
payment does not discharge the debt. - Discuss the exceptions in Pinnel’s Case: something added, different
place, early payment, etc. - Explain promissory estoppel (as on of the exceptions to Pinnel’s Case)
and the circumstances where it will operate. Discuss its nature and the
apparent lack of consideration. - Discuss when, in the circumstances discussed, the debt may be discharged.
Question 6- Explain briefly the nature of consideration.
- Define consideration, emphasising the idea of bargain in the Currie v
Misa definition. - Explain that for consideration to be sufficient it must be part of the
current agreement. - Explain the cases on past consideration – Roscorla v Thomas, Re McArdle.
- Develop this with cases which go beyond the basic ‘rule’ with an
implication that something would be given in return – Lampleigh v
Braithwait, Re Casey’s Patents - Speculate on other situations where this may arise, e.g. undertaking
extra work for an employer, with the expectation of pay.
Question 7- Introduce the traditional need for consideration and define it – Dunlop
v Selfridge, Currie v Misa. - Explain that performance of an existing duty does not normally amount
to valid consideration (examine general duty – Collins v Godefroy –
and contractual duty – Stylk v Myrick). - Explain that work beyond the normal duty may be consideration, and
why – Glasbrook v Glamorgan, Hartley v Ponsonby. - Consider what might amount to ‘extra’ work – Ward v Byham
- Examine a duty owed to a third party – Scotson v Pegg.
- Examine the effect of Williams v Roffey on the existing case law, and discuss
the circumstances in which it may apply in the future – Re Selectmove.
Question 8- The question is about the ‘rules’ of consideration, and whether the
exceptions indicate that it is time to review them.
296 Contract lawCHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 296