Explain any issues arising from any possible contract between Rebecca and Beth. Explain how the rules
of consideration might be used to enforce such an arrangement (10)
The primary issue of this contract, particularly the initial one is lack of consideration. As defined in Currie v
Misa, consideration is value for value exchanged from both sides and whilst it need not be adequate
(market value, Thomas v Thomas) but must be sufficient (real, White v Bluett). Whilst Rebecca looking after
Beth’s house may be sufficient as it is a service, as Rebecca gains nothing in return, this is not sufficient and
this is instead a gratuitous promise. Therefore, as there is not consideration initially, there is no contract.
However, later there is consideration as Beth promises to pay Rebecca £100. Here we run into another
issue of past consideration in which the performance comes before the promise and in this case, as we see
with Beth promising to pay £100 after Rebecca had looked after her house, we see clear past
consideration. Usually, past consideration would mean that there is no contract however, there are 3
exceptions, fresh consideration (Williams v Roffey), the rule in Lampliegh v Braithwaite and promissory
estoppel (High Trees). As fresh consideration and promissory estoppel both require a prior arrangement,
we must instead look at the rule in Lampliegh v Braithwaite in which one person asks for a favour which
the other party completes and then after, the initial party promises to may back but never does. Here it is
evident that this applies and thus Beth is liable to pay the £100. We may have an issue here with intention
as we presume that families and friends do not intend to be in a contract (Balfour v Balfour) and as
Rebecca and Beth are friends, this presumption may apply. However, it is unlikely to as in the case of
Lampleigh v Braithwaite where the rule originates, the two were friends yet this presumption did not
apply. Therefore, it is likely that the rule in Lampleigh v Braithwaite may be used to enforce this
arrangement.
Sound- 9/10
of consideration might be used to enforce such an arrangement (10)
The primary issue of this contract, particularly the initial one is lack of consideration. As defined in Currie v
Misa, consideration is value for value exchanged from both sides and whilst it need not be adequate
(market value, Thomas v Thomas) but must be sufficient (real, White v Bluett). Whilst Rebecca looking after
Beth’s house may be sufficient as it is a service, as Rebecca gains nothing in return, this is not sufficient and
this is instead a gratuitous promise. Therefore, as there is not consideration initially, there is no contract.
However, later there is consideration as Beth promises to pay Rebecca £100. Here we run into another
issue of past consideration in which the performance comes before the promise and in this case, as we see
with Beth promising to pay £100 after Rebecca had looked after her house, we see clear past
consideration. Usually, past consideration would mean that there is no contract however, there are 3
exceptions, fresh consideration (Williams v Roffey), the rule in Lampliegh v Braithwaite and promissory
estoppel (High Trees). As fresh consideration and promissory estoppel both require a prior arrangement,
we must instead look at the rule in Lampliegh v Braithwaite in which one person asks for a favour which
the other party completes and then after, the initial party promises to may back but never does. Here it is
evident that this applies and thus Beth is liable to pay the £100. We may have an issue here with intention
as we presume that families and friends do not intend to be in a contract (Balfour v Balfour) and as
Rebecca and Beth are friends, this presumption may apply. However, it is unlikely to as in the case of
Lampleigh v Braithwaite where the rule originates, the two were friends yet this presumption did not
apply. Therefore, it is likely that the rule in Lampleigh v Braithwaite may be used to enforce this
arrangement.
Sound- 9/10
