Lampleigh v braithwait re caseys patents see latimer

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: munerated the promise would have been enforceable if it had been promised in advance of the act Or Future (executory) consideration where the parties agree to exchange promises to do something in the future: see Latimer at ¶5-420 Cases: • Lampleigh v Braithwait • Re Casey’s Patents See Latimer at ¶5-410 39 Rules for Consideration 40 Rules for Consideration 3. Consideration must have value but need not be adequate 4. Consideration must be sufficient Consideration must have value but need not be adequate as this is something only the parties to the contract can decide • This means that it must have some legal value Case: Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd • As long as consideration exists, the courts will not be concerned about its adequacy • If not, it may be considered insufficient and no consideration at all See Latimer at ¶5-440 41 42 Rules for Consideration Rules for Consideration 5. Consideration must be possible of performance 9. Practical benefit can be good consideration 6. Consideration must be definite • Cases: 7. Consideration must be legal Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd See Latimer at ¶5-470 8. Consideration must be referable to the other party’s promise 43 43 Insufficient Consideration Insufficient Consideration 1. Moral obligations as well as natural love and affection will NOT convert a promise into good consideration • • 44 2. Part payment is insufficient consideration • Part payment is NOT good consideration • Exception: if creditor agrees to accept smaller amount (or something different), a debt is considered discharged. Case: Eastwood v Kenyon See Latimer at ¶5-471 • Cases: Pinnel’s case; Foakes v Beer • See Latimer at ¶5-480 45 Consideration and Promissory Estoppel: the exception to the rule 46 Promissory estoppel • Promissory estoppel will allow a promise to be enforced even though the promisee has not provided good consideration for that promise • It operates where it would be inequitable, or unconscionable, for the promisor not to be held to their promise • You can’t go back on your word! • See Latimer at ¶5-485 47 • Cases: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd Legione v Hateley Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher See Latimer at ¶5-485 48 Promissory estoppel Promissory estoppel Brennan J’s (Waltons v Maher) six-point test for when the promisor cannot go back on his/her word: • Promisee (Maher = P) assumes existence of particular legal relationship • Promisor (Waltons = D) responsible for this assumption • Promisee acted/did not act in reliance on that assumption • Promisor knew what promisee would do or intended for promisee to act in this way • Promisee will suffer loss or some detriment or harm if the assumption/expectation is not fulfilled • Promisor did not take any steps to warn promisee s/he may not fulfil expectation etc “The central principle of the doctrine is that the law will not permit an unconscionable – or, more accurately, unconscientious – departure by one party from the subject matter or an assumption which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some relationship, course of conduct, act or omission which would operate to the other party’s detriment if the assumption be not adhered to…”. Deane J in Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39 See Latimer at ¶5-485 See Latimer at ¶5-485 49 49 Next week’s lecture Contract Law (continued): • Intention to create legal relations • Terms of a contract • Conditions and warranties • Exclusion clauses • Please read: Latimer Ch 6, ¶6-010 to ¶6-250 • DO NOT MISS TUTORIALS ON THIS TOPIC! 51 50...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online