Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Can exist where promisee suffers some detriment at promisors request even though no direct
benefit is conferred on the promisor Tanner v Tanner.
Chappel & Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd: chocolate bars part of consideration. De La Bere C allowing
newspaper to print letter (invented consideration).
Existing duties imposed by law Collins v Godefroy. But exceeding ones duty can be consideration
Glasbrook Bros.
Existing contractual duty Stilk v Myrick (party promising additional payment gets no benefit)
Exceeding this duty can be consideration Hartley v Ponsonby.
A enters into contract with B to do work or supply goods and services in return for payment
At some time before A has completely performed promise, D has reason to doubt whether A
will complete his side of the deal
B therefore promises A an additional sum
B obtains a practical benefit through this
Bs promise is not given under duress
Confined to goods & services by Foakes v Beer. Not relevant for part payment of debt: Re Selectmove.
Existing duties owed to 3P can be consideration: Scotson v Pegg, supported by The Eurymedon.
Generally, part payment of debts is not good consideration Pinnels Case (followed by Foakes v
Beer). But debtor may furnish good consideration for creditors promise to accept lesser sum by:
Cheque is not good consideration for less if used merely as substitute for cash D&C Builders Ltd v
Rees.
A. Disputed debts: if sum uncertain and less is accepted, that is binding. Pinnels Case wont apply.
B. Payment of debts by 3P (Welby v Drake) would be fraud on 3P to sue other for full sum.
Promissory Estoppel
From Denning Js decision in High Trees, based on Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co: A promise to
accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the
absence of consideration. 4 requirements to established defence of promissory estoppel:
1. Promise not to insist on PORs strict legal rights must be clear and unequivocal wasnt in
Nigerian Produce Marketing. Promise may be implied from words or conduct (Hughes). Need not be
express.
D & C Builders No promissory estoppel as creditors promise to accept 300 in full satisfaction had
been extorted from him by economic duress.
3. PEE must have changed his position in reliance upon the promise
Established in Alan & Co. Ltd. Detriment is not necessary Goff J in Societe Italo-Belge.
PE usually merely suspends rights. Does not extinguish them unless impossible for PEE to resume
original position. POR may revive his suspended rights by giving reasonable notice which need not be
formal Tool Metal Manufacturing.
[High Trees Denning suggested PE can extinguish rights. Said same obiter in D & C Builders. ]