FULL NOTES OF CONTRACT LAW TOPICS
INDEX
CONSIDERATION: PAGE 2-3
Moodle: week 4
1) General info
2) Types of consideration
3) Golden rules/ good consideration
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: PAGES 4-5
Moodle: week 4
1) General info
2) Exceptions
3) Starting point of Promissory Estoppel
4) Requirements of Promissory Estoppel
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS: PAGE 6
Moodle: week 6
1) General info
2) Types of legal relations
3) Comfort letters
IMPLIED TERMS: PAGES 7-9
Moodle: week 9
1) General Info
2) Source of implied terms
- By the courts
- Two tests
- By custom
- By statute
MIND MAPS/NOTES: PAGES 10-12
Extremely simple notes on Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
*Legal relations and implied terms not done yet*
, CONSIDERATION
GENERAL INFO
- Both parties receive something = simple contract is enforceable
- C is feature of both common and English law, not civil.
- “An act of one party, or the promise, is the price for which the promise of the other is
bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.”. – Per Dunedin LJ,
DUNLOP V SELFIRDGE [1915]
3 TYPES OF C
1) Executory C: a mutual exchange of promises
╰▷ The promise of party A in return for the promise of Party B
2) Executed C: A promise in exchange for a performance of an act
╰▷ One party has executed their half, the other party’s consideration is executory
(to be expected to be done)
3) Past C: Service provided before the promise of a reward
╰▷ Service provided by the one party before the promise of the reward by the other
part
GOLDEN RULES OF GOOD CONSIDERATION
*Look at cases of good consideration on case sheet for case summary*
1) C must not be past
RE MCARDLE [1951] Daughter-in -law unable to claim costs for
improvement as the promise to
reimburse her came after improvements
were made.
Exception to past consideration Promise of payment was made after
LAMPLEIGH V BRATHWAITE [1615] performance however came from
Defendant so consideration valid.
2) C must move from the promise
TWEDDLE V ATKINSON [1861] The groom could not sue his father-in-law
because although groom was named in
contract, he himself did not provide any
consideration. (Consideration was between
the fathers of the couple).
3) C must be sufficient, not adequate
(Of some economic value) Wrappers form part of consideration as the
CHAPPEL V NESTLE [1960] object was to increase value. So, nestle
couldn’t retail records lower because
wrappers being thrown away didn’t
diminish the value. Nestle no longer
allowed to sell records for breaching s.8
Copy Rights Act.
2
INDEX
CONSIDERATION: PAGE 2-3
Moodle: week 4
1) General info
2) Types of consideration
3) Golden rules/ good consideration
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: PAGES 4-5
Moodle: week 4
1) General info
2) Exceptions
3) Starting point of Promissory Estoppel
4) Requirements of Promissory Estoppel
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS: PAGE 6
Moodle: week 6
1) General info
2) Types of legal relations
3) Comfort letters
IMPLIED TERMS: PAGES 7-9
Moodle: week 9
1) General Info
2) Source of implied terms
- By the courts
- Two tests
- By custom
- By statute
MIND MAPS/NOTES: PAGES 10-12
Extremely simple notes on Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
*Legal relations and implied terms not done yet*
, CONSIDERATION
GENERAL INFO
- Both parties receive something = simple contract is enforceable
- C is feature of both common and English law, not civil.
- “An act of one party, or the promise, is the price for which the promise of the other is
bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.”. – Per Dunedin LJ,
DUNLOP V SELFIRDGE [1915]
3 TYPES OF C
1) Executory C: a mutual exchange of promises
╰▷ The promise of party A in return for the promise of Party B
2) Executed C: A promise in exchange for a performance of an act
╰▷ One party has executed their half, the other party’s consideration is executory
(to be expected to be done)
3) Past C: Service provided before the promise of a reward
╰▷ Service provided by the one party before the promise of the reward by the other
part
GOLDEN RULES OF GOOD CONSIDERATION
*Look at cases of good consideration on case sheet for case summary*
1) C must not be past
RE MCARDLE [1951] Daughter-in -law unable to claim costs for
improvement as the promise to
reimburse her came after improvements
were made.
Exception to past consideration Promise of payment was made after
LAMPLEIGH V BRATHWAITE [1615] performance however came from
Defendant so consideration valid.
2) C must move from the promise
TWEDDLE V ATKINSON [1861] The groom could not sue his father-in-law
because although groom was named in
contract, he himself did not provide any
consideration. (Consideration was between
the fathers of the couple).
3) C must be sufficient, not adequate
(Of some economic value) Wrappers form part of consideration as the
CHAPPEL V NESTLE [1960] object was to increase value. So, nestle
couldn’t retail records lower because
wrappers being thrown away didn’t
diminish the value. Nestle no longer
allowed to sell records for breaching s.8
Copy Rights Act.
2
