Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Consideration, Part payment of debt, Estoppel and Duress (Consideration…

- - - - Pao On v Lau Yiu Long test
        
        Act done at promisor's request (Lampleigh v Brathwaite)
        
        Parties understood act was to be rewarded by payment or other benefit
        
        More likely in a commercial context (Re Casey's Patents)
        
        The reward must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
        
        Any other contractual problem?
  - - - Exceptions
        
        If new duties radically different to old (Hartley v Ponsonby)
        
        Promisor obtained practical benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd)
        
        If A had entered into contract with B for work or supply of goods or services
        
        Before completion B has reason to doubt if A will, or will be able to, complete their obligations
        
        B thereupon promises additional payment for completion on time
        
        As a result B gains a practical benefit or obviates a disbenefit
        
        Promise was not given as a result of duress or fraud
  - - - Exceptions
        
        Pinnel's Case
        
        Different place
        
        Different thing
        
        Earlier
        
        Practical benefit
        
        Rejected by Re Selectmove
        
        MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd appeared to allow it
        
        Questionable law as unaddressed by Supreme Court in Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd
        
        Payment by a third party (Welby v Drake)
- - - - A shield not a sword (Combe v Combe)
      - A clear and unequivocal promise (Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA and another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd)
        
        Must be intended to affect legal relations (Hughes v Metropolitan Railway)
      - Promisee must have altered their position (Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd)
        
        Promise need not be only reason for change in position but must have influenced promisee's conduct in some way. BoP on promisor where promisee conducted themselves as intended by promisor after the promise was made (Brikom Investments v Carr)
      - Need not be detrimental reliance (Alan (WJ) & Co v El Nasr Export & Import Co)
        
        However detriment assists establishing inequitability (The Post Chaser)
      - Inequitable for the promisor to go back on promise (D & C Bulders v Rees)
    - - Acts while prevailing conditions to promise continue (Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd)
      - Period of estoppel can be brought to an end by providing reasonable notice (Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (NIgeria) Ltd)
- - - - Lack of practical choice
        
        Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK)
        
        B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publication Ltd
        
        Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd
        
        Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd
      - Pressure
      - Illegitimate pressure
        
        Threatened breach of contract is unlawful threat
        
        Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK)
        
        Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd
        
        B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publication Ltd
        
        Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd
        
        Pressure applied in good or bad faith?
        
        Bad
        
        B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publication Ltd
        
        Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK)
        
        Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd
        
        Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd
        
        Good
        
        CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd
        
        DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA
        
        Did victim protest?
        
        Yes
        
        Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK)
        
        No
        
        The Atlantic Baron
        
        Did victim affirm?
        
        Yes
        
        The Atlantic Baron
        
        No
        
        B&S Contracts and Design v Victor Green Publications Ltd
      - SIgnificant cause
        
        Duress must be a significant cause of alleged victim's entry into disputed contract (Huytin SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co)
        
        'But for' test