strike action in 21st century
Case Summaries : Week 8/ Contract 5/ Consideration
1. Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)
D owed an unsecured debt to C. C asked for some security, and D promised to provide some goods but never produced them. When C tried to enforce the agreement for the security, D argued that C had not provided any consideration.
HELD: that normally in such a case, the bank would promise not to enforce the debt, but this was not done here. By not suing, however, the bank had shown forbearance which was valid consideration for D’s promise to provide security , so the agreement to provide security was binding.
2. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130
In 1937 the Cs granted a 99 year lease on a block of flats in London to the Ds at an annual rent of £2500. Because of the outbreak of war in 1939, the Ds could not get enough tenants and in 1940 the Cs agreed in writing to reduce the rent to £1250. When the war ended in 1945 all the flats were occupied and the Cs sued to recover the arrears of rent as fixed by the 1937 agreement for the last two quarters of 1945.
Held; [High Court] Denning J that Cs were entitled to recover this money as their promise to accept only half was intended to apply during war conditions. (This is the ratio decidendi of the case). Denning stated obiter, that if the Cs sued for the arrears from 1940-45, the 1940 agreement would have defeated their claim. Even though the Ds did not provide consideration for the Cs' promise to accept half rent, this promise was intended to be binding and was acted on by the Ds. Therefore the Cs were estopped from going back on their promise and could not claim the full rent for 1940-45.
3. Chappell v Nestle (1959) D was running a special offer whereby members of the public could obtain a music record by sending off three wrappers from Nestle's chocolate bars plus some money. The copyright to the records was owned by C , who claimed that there had been breaches of copyright by D .
1. Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)
D owed an unsecured debt to C. C asked for some security, and D promised to provide some goods but never produced them. When C tried to enforce the agreement for the security, D argued that C had not provided any consideration.
HELD: that normally in such a case, the bank would promise not to enforce the debt, but this was not done here. By not suing, however, the bank had shown forbearance which was valid consideration for D’s promise to provide security , so the agreement to provide security was binding.
2. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130
In 1937 the Cs granted a 99 year lease on a block of flats in London to the Ds at an annual rent of £2500. Because of the outbreak of war in 1939, the Ds could not get enough tenants and in 1940 the Cs agreed in writing to reduce the rent to £1250. When the war ended in 1945 all the flats were occupied and the Cs sued to recover the arrears of rent as fixed by the 1937 agreement for the last two quarters of 1945.
Held; [High Court] Denning J that Cs were entitled to recover this money as their promise to accept only half was intended to apply during war conditions. (This is the ratio decidendi of the case). Denning stated obiter, that if the Cs sued for the arrears from 1940-45, the 1940 agreement would have defeated their claim. Even though the Ds did not provide consideration for the Cs' promise to accept half rent, this promise was intended to be binding and was acted on by the Ds. Therefore the Cs were estopped from going back on their promise and could not claim the full rent for 1940-45.
3. Chappell v Nestle (1959) D was running a special offer whereby members of the public could obtain a music record by sending off three wrappers from Nestle's chocolate bars plus some money. The copyright to the records was owned by C , who claimed that there had been breaches of copyright by D .