Deck 3: Consideration and Other Tests of Enforceability

Question 1

A valid deed is a means of enforcing a promise without the need for consideration

Answer 1

True

Question 2

Which of the following are required to raise the defence of promissory estoppel?

A) Both parties must have modified their contractual obligations
B) One party must have relied detrimentally upon the other
C) There must be a pre-existing agreement between the parties
D) There must be an obligation to pay money under the contract

Answer 2

B,C

Question 3

Which of the following are features of 'good consideration'?

A) It is not past consideration
B) It is of value
C) It must be a physical thing
D) It can include the doing of immoral acts

Answer 3

A,B

Question 4

In which of these jursidictions can promissory estoppel be used as the basis for a contract?

A) Austrialia
B) Canada
C) Certain US states
D) England & Wales

Question 5

What is the function of consideration?

Question 6

Are the rules on what can and cannot constitute valuable consideration sufficiently clear? If not, how might they be improved?

Question 7

Should the Court of Appeal decision in Williams v Roffey be regarded as a great leap forward, preventing rigid rules getting in the way of business practice or an act of vandalism against rules that must remain intact?

Question 8

Explain the rule laid out by the Privy Council in Pao On v Yau Liu Long and when it will apply.

Question 9

To what extent could it be argued that consideration is essentially identical to the concept of reliance?

Question 10

Could it be argued that reliance would be a more cogent basis than consideration for the enforcement of contracts?

Question 11

Define the concept of 'waiver'.

Question 12

It is said that promissory estoppel is 'suspensory in effect'. What does this mean?

Question 13

Which of these two cases illustrate the rule that consideration need not be adequate but merely sufficient?

A) Chapel v Hicks
B) Foakes v Beer
C) Thomas v Thomas
D) Chapell & Co Ltd v Nestle

Question 14

Which of the following would be regarded as valuable consideration?

A) Agreeing not to sue the promisor for a previous breach of contract
B) Agreeing to do an existing statutory duty
C) Giving money to a charity nominated by the promisor
D) A promise made under a previous contract with the promisor

Question 15

A deed is only valid once is bears a wax seal

Question 16

A promise to do an act (as opposed to simply paying money) can in itself be valuable consideration?

Question 17

Consideration of £1, or even a peppercorn, could be sufficient consideration for the sale of a house?

Question 18

In English law, promissory estoppel is a defence to a claim and can be raised only where there is a pre-existing contract?

Question 19

Promisory estoppel cannot be used as a defence for paying only part of a debt.

Question 20

The concept of promisory estoppel was found orignally in the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway?

Question 21

Which case establishes the rule at common law that part payment of a debt can never be full settlement of that debt?

A) Pinnel's Case
B) Foakes v Beer
C) Pennel's Case
D) D & C Builders v Rees

Question 22

Which case held that a promise to stop complaining how a father distributed his assets to his children was not supported by good consideration?

A) Williams v Williams
B) Re McArdle
C) Roscorla v Thomas
D) White v Bluett

Question 23

Which case established that a promise to keep look after a child and keep it happy was good consideration to pay maintenance to the child's mother?

A) White v White
B) Ward v Byham
C) Williamsv Roffey
D) Re Ward

Question 24

In Williams v Roffey, completing the agreed works on time and avoiding a contractual penalty clause was referred as what, so as to be good consideration?

A) An obviative intervention
B) A disbenefit mitigation
C) A practical benefit
D) A practical disbenefit

Question 25

Jorden v Money is a key case in relation to which of the following?

A) Waiver
B) Promissory estoppel
C) Proprietary estoppel
D) Champerty

Question 26

Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc is authority for which of the following contentions?

A) English law will not recognise a commercial contract based upon promissory estoppel
B) English law will not recognise a contract for the sale of goods based upon promissory estoppel
C) English law will not recognise that any contract can be based upon promissory estoppel
D) In special circumstances, such as those in this case, a contract can be based on promissory estoppel

Question 27

Why does English law insist that promissory estoppel cannot be the basis for a contract per s?

Question 28

Consideration can be described as:

A) Conscientious dealing
B) An exchange of valuable promises
C) The need to pay in cash
D) The opposite of an offer

Question 29

Arnold contracts with Nina to paint the interior of her flat for £200. Halfway through the work he asks for an additional £100. Would he be entitled to the extra payment if:

A) He run out of paint and needed to buy more?
B) Nina asked him to also paint the exterior of the flat?
C) He realised he had undervalued the work?
D) He realised Nina could afford more than £200?

Question 30

Which case is authority for the proposition that new consideration is needed to support contractual modifications?

A) Balfour v Balfour
B) Adams v Lindsell
C) Stilk v Myrick
D) Fisher v Bell

Question 31

What is meant by 'practical benefit'?

A) The notion that indirect value can constitute consideration
B) The idea that parties are always better off receiving some payment
C) The knowledge you gain through practice
D) The notion that cash equals consideration

Question 32

The case of Williams v Roffey is known for establishing which notion?

A) Only fair payment constitutes consideration
B) Practical benefit can constitute consideration
C) Doing something for nothing is not good consideration
D) Contractual agreements can only be changed for payments of cash

Question 33

What is meant by 'past consideration'?

A) That a promise to reward benefit already given is not good consideration
B) That a promise to reward benefit already given is good consideration
C) That the chronological sequence of promises matters
D) That old promises are unenforceable

Question 34

Which of the following did not constitute a requirement for overcoming a past consideration claim in Pao On?

A) Act done at promisor's request
B) Understanding that a reward is due
C) Reward would be payable if promised in advance
D) Act done at promisee's request

Question 35

In which case will a performance of a public duty be good consideration?

A) Always
B) When performance exceeds the public duty
C) Never
D) When the duty is particularly onerous

Question 36

Liar Ltd as part of a promotional campaign offered a free manual shaver to any customer who bought their electric shaving machine between November and December 2008. Would their customers:

A) Be able to demand the manual shaver?
B) Not be able, because by saying 'free' Liar Ltd provided no consideration?
C) Not be able, because promotional campaigns are not to be taken seriously?
D) Be able as promotional campaigns are binding?

Question 37

Would you be able to sue a newspaper if a free DVD promised to be included in the paper is missing?

A) No, as there is no consideration
B) Yes, as consideration can be found for the promise of the DVD
C) No, as promotional offers are not meant to be binding
D) Yes, as promotional offers are always binding