Consideration PDF

Preview

Summary

Consideration...

Description

Consideration:  Thomas v Thomas (1842) CQB: The defendant was the surviving executor of the plaintiff’s deceased husband. Before his death, the husband had expressed the wish that the plaintiff should have a life interest in a certain house of his in Merthyr Tydfil. After his death, his executors made a written agreement with the plaintiff in the following terms: in consideration of the deceased husband’s wishes, the executors would convey the house to the plaintiff for life on various conditions, provided that the plaintiff pay the executors £1 per year towards the ground rent on the house and keep it in good repair. The defendant later refused to make such a conveyance and turned the plaintiff out of the house.  Consideration must be sufficient, but need not be adequate: Bainbridge v Firmstone (1838) CQB the defendant asked to weigh the plaintiff’s boilers and promised to return them to working order afterwards. The plaintiff agreed, but the defendant left the boilers in pieces. The defendant argued that the plaintiff could not obtain damages because he had not given any consideration. Held, per Patteson J: The consideration is, that the plaintiff, at the defendant’s request, had consented to allow the defendant to weigh the boilers. I suppose the defendant thought he had some benefit; at any rate, there is a detriment to the plaintiff from his parting with the possession for even so short a time.  Consideration must move from the promisee: Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) CQB. The plaintiff was T’s son who had married G’s daughter. T and G had made a written agreement that T would pay the plaintiff £100 and G would pay him £200. They also agreed that the plaintiff ‘has full power to sue the said parties…for the aforesaid sums’. G did not pay the £200 and, since G had died, the plaintiff sued G’s executor. Held the plaintiff could not sue as he was not a party to the contract. Per Wightman J: ‘…it is now established that no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit.’ Per Crompton J: …the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract. It would be a monstrous proposition to say that a person was a party to the contract for the purpose of suing upon it for his own advantage, and not a party to it for the purpose of being sued.  Consideration need not move to the promisor: In Re Wyvern Developments Ltd (1972) Ch Wyvern agreed to buy some land from Gresham. Wyvern did not have the money to complete the purchase and was wound up, with the Official Receiver as liquidator. The land remained vested in Gresham on trust for Wyvern subject to a vendor’s lien in favour of Gresham of £20,598. Gresham could therefore only sell the land with the consent of Wyvern, given by the liquidator, or by applying to the court. The required consent was given by the Official Receiver when Gresham found a buyer, Winter, willing to pay £16,000. The whole of that sum would be paid to Gresham, since it was less than the vendor’s lien. After contracts were exchanged between Gresham and Winter, the majority shareholder in Wyvern claimed there was another buyer willing to pay £35,000 and brought this action to prevent the official receiver executing on behalf of Wyvern the conveyance to complete the sale of the land to Winter.  Past consideration is no consideration: Roscorla v Thomas (1842) CQB. In consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had earlier bought from the defendant a horse for the sum of £30, the defendant promised that it was sound and free from vice. Held the promise of the horse’s soundness did not give the defendant any contractual liability, because the plaintiff’s consideration had already been given at the time of the defendant’s promise...