Contract - Consideration And Estoppel: Cases
A quiz to assist in learning and to revise the cases relevant in answering an exam question on Consideration and Estoppel.
This quiz contains 11 questions and covers the 11 most necessary cases in the topic.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
The definition of consideration is the benefit to one party, or the detriment to the other. Which case established this definition?
- A.
Currie v Misa
- B.
Thomas v Thomas
- C.
Pinnels Case
Correct Answer
A. Currie v MisaExplanation
Currie v Misa is the case that established the definition of consideration as the benefit to one party or the detriment to the other.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
A promise needs to have some economical value to be considered sufficient. In this case, a father had promised a reward if the son promised to stop complaining. This was considered to be insufficient in the eyes of the law.
- A.
ReMcArdle
- B.
Thomas v Thomas
- C.
White v Bluett
Correct Answer
C. White v BluettExplanation
In White v Bluett, the court held that a promise to stop complaining does not have any economic value and therefore cannot be considered as sufficient consideration. The law requires consideration to have some economic value in order to enforce a promise. Since the promise made by the son in this case did not involve any economic benefit, it was deemed insufficient and the father's promise of a reward was not legally binding.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Despite needing to be "sufficient" a promise needn't be "adequate." The widow of the homeowner paid £1 per year ground rent, the courts ignored the value, £1 is sufficient. Which case was this?
- A.
ReMcArdle
- B.
Thomas v Thomas
- C.
Williams v Williams
Correct Answer
B. Thomas v ThomasExplanation
In the case of Thomas v Thomas, the widow of the homeowner paid £1 per year as ground rent. The courts considered this amount to be sufficient, despite it not being adequate in terms of its value. This suggests that the court recognized that the widow had fulfilled her obligation to pay rent, even though the amount was very low.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Past consideration is not good consideration. In this case the wife carried out home improvements, the children later promised to pay when they take over ownership of the home.
- A.
Stilk v Myrick
- B.
Thomas v Thomas
- C.
ReMcArdle
Correct Answer
C. ReMcArdleExplanation
In the case of ReMcArdle, the question is about the concept of consideration in contract law. Consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between parties in a contract. In this case, the wife carried out home improvements, which can be seen as past consideration. Past consideration is generally not considered good consideration because it involves actions or promises made before the contract was formed. Therefore, the promise made by the children to pay for the improvements when they take over ownership of the home would not be legally enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Past consideration may be bad consideration, however if there is a reasonable expectation to be paid/rewarded before performing the action then the courts may allow the past consideration to be sufficient. Which case established this exception?
- A.
Pau On v Lau Yiu Long
- B.
Stilk v Myrick
- C.
Collins v Goodfroy
Correct Answer
A. Pau On v Lau Yiu LongExplanation
Pau On v Lau Yiu Long established the exception that past consideration may be sufficient if there is a reasonable expectation of being paid or rewarded before performing the action.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
During a voyage, two seamen abandoned ship. The captain promised the remaining workers a cut of the two seamen. The judges held that there was no change to the other workers obligation under the existing contractual duty, therefore no new consideration. Which case was this?
- A.
Stilk v Myrick
- B.
Ward v Byham
- C.
Pinnels Case
Correct Answer
A. Stilk v MyrickExplanation
In the case of Stilk v Myrick, the court held that there was no new consideration provided by the captain's promise to the remaining workers. The court determined that the workers were already under an existing contractual duty to perform their duties on the ship, and the promise of a cut from the two seamen did not provide any additional benefit or change their obligations. Therefore, there was no valid consideration for the promise and it was not enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
So we know that an existing contractual duty is not good consideration. Acting on an existing legal duty is also considered not to be good consideration. In this case the witness was promised six guineas to appear as a witness in court. (Weird, I know!) but the court held that appearing in court was not good consideration as it was a legal obligation to to attend and give evidence. Which case was this?
- A.
Ward v Byham
- B.
ReMcArdle
- C.
Collins v Goodfroy
Correct Answer
C. Collins v GoodfroyExplanation
In Collins v Goodfroy, the court held that appearing in court as a witness was not considered good consideration because it was a legal obligation to attend and give evidence. This means that the promise of six guineas to the witness was not enforceable as there was no valid consideration for the promise.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
If an existing legal duty is part of the agreement, there must be extra consideration for it to be considered to be binding. In this case the mother of a child was promised £1 from the father to "maintain and keep the child happy." The father stopped paying. The court held that the mother was only legally obliged to "maintain" the child, keeping the child happy was extra consideration. Which case was this?
- A.
Thomas v Thomas
- B.
Ward v Byham
- C.
Stilk v Myrick
Correct Answer
B. Ward v ByhamExplanation
In the case of Ward v Byham, the court held that the mother was only legally obliged to "maintain" the child, and keeping the child happy was considered extra consideration. This means that the promise made by the father to pay £1 to "maintain and keep the child happy" was not legally binding because it did not involve any additional consideration beyond the existing legal duty of maintaining the child. Therefore, the correct answer is Ward v Byham.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
A duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, even though they may not be formally contracted to carry out the promise. In this case, one party was contracted to deliver a drilling machine from Liverpool to Wellington. To move the machine, the delivering company contracted a third party, who subsequently damaged the product. Which case was this?
- A.
Wickman Machine Tool Sales v Schuler
- B.
North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction
- C.
New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite
Correct Answer
C. New Zealand Shipping v SatterthwaiteExplanation
In the case of New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite, a duty was owed to a third party (the delivering company) to transport the drilling machine. The third party, in this case, was contracted to carry out the promise of delivering the machine, but they damaged the product. This situation demonstrates that a duty owed to a third party can still be considered good consideration, even if there is no formal contract between the third party and the party making the promise.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
What consideration is necessary for debt to be part-paid/written off? In this case, the owing party met financial struggles, so the debtor had agreed to write off some debt without anything in return. The debtor then claimed the debt which was supposedly written off. Because the obligation of the contract was to make payment for the full amount, the contract was still in progress until such a time the full amount was paid. The famous quote "hawk, horse or robe" was established - suggesting anything in return for the written off money would have amounted to good consideration and the debt could have been abolished. Which case?
- A.
Pinnels Case
- B.
ReMcArdle
- C.
Stilk v Myrick
Correct Answer
A. Pinnels CaseExplanation
In Pinnel's Case, the court ruled that the debtor is not relieved of their obligation to pay the full amount of the debt if the creditor agrees to accept a partial payment or write off a portion of the debt without receiving anything in return. The court held that without any new consideration, the original contract remains in effect and the debtor is still obligated to pay the full amount. The famous quote "hawk, horse or robe" refers to the idea that if the debtor had provided something of value in return for the written off money, it could have been considered good consideration and the debt could have been discharged.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Estoppel remember must only ever be used defensively. Estoppel is where a debtor accepts a smaller amount in full settlement of the contract. For example: Jack rents a house from David. There is a war, affecting the area of the property including the amount of work in the area. Jack can no longer afford to live in the property, so David agrees to accept the rent at half price for the duration of the war so Jack continues to live in the property. The war ends, Jack can now live and work and afford the full rent. David puts the rent back to the full price. But also claims the difference between the half price rent and the full price rent for the 2 years of the war - totalling £5000. Estoppel is used defensively to stop David being able to claim the additional sum for the 2 years, despite it effectively being a part payment with no consideration on Jack's part, estoppel can be used to stop David claiming the extra. What case has similar facts?
- A.
Re Selectmove
- B.
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
- C.
Collins v Goodfroy
Correct Answer
B. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House -
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Apr 07, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 02, 2011Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top