Consideration

Consideration...

The price paid for the promise

BargainA promise asked for, or relied upon, as

an aspect of a bargain between the parties to the contractDunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v Selfridge & Company [1915] AC 847

“An act or forbearance of one party, or promise therof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable”

Sir Frederick Pollock, adopted by the House of Lords in Dunlop

Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v Selfridge & Company Ltd at 855

ConsiderationMust be bargained forMust be performed in return for a promise – quid pro quo

Is a required element in the formation of a contract

except deeds

Without consideration a promise cannot be enforced:

SO, only a party providing consideration can enforce a promise

Past consideration is not good consideration

If what is done is not done as a reaction to the promise, it cannot be good considerationRoscorla v Thomas (1842) 3QB 234

Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 113 ER 482

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

Only parties to a contract may enforce, or be bound by, a contract

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co

“My lords, in the law of England certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it.”

Lord Haldane at 853

Cases on Privity

Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762

Beswick v Beswick

[1966] 1 Ch 538.

SummaryFor a contract to be formed there must be:An OfferWhich has been Acceptedby parties who intended to create legal

relationsAnd bargained or paid for their mutual promises

in the form of ConsiderationAnd only these parties may enforce the

contractual promises (Privity)

Terms

Term or representation? Objective test of intention “reasonable man”

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41

Indicative factors include1. Importance of statement2. Time between statement and

contract3. Special knowledge or skill or

access to truth of one party4. Inclusion of statement in any

subsequent document Ellul &Ellul v Oakes (1972) 3 SASR 377

What kind of term?A term may be either: a Condition

Essential termBreach – entitlement to terminate/or damages

a WarrantyAncillary termBreach – damages, but no termination

an Innominate term Intermediate termBreach – termination if sufficiently serious

Test: how essential was the promise?“The question whether a term in a contract is a condition or a warranty, i.e. an essential or a non-essential promise, depends upon the intention of the parties as appearing in or from the contract. The test of essentiality is whether it appears from the general nature of the contract considered as a whole, or from some particular term or terms, that the promise is of such importance to the promisee that he would not have entered into the contract unless he had been assured of a strict, or a substantial, performance of the promise, as the case may be, and that this ought to have been apparent to the promisor…. Jordan CJ in Tramways Advertising v Luna Park

Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v

Luna Park (NSW)

Ltd (1938) NSWLR 633

Associated Newspapers Limited v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322

WarrantyBettini v Gye (1876) 1QBD 183 per Blackburn J

said at 188:

“[a condition is] a stipulation [which] goes to the root of the matter, so that a failure to perform it would render the performance of the rest of the contract a thing different in substance from what the defendant has stipulated for.”

Implied termsTerms may be implied by:

Trade usage or custom

Statute

Courts, based on facts and circumstances of contract

Austral Pacific Group Ltd (in liq) v Airservices Australia (2000) 203 CLR 136

“…statutorily created and take effect by legal fiction, namely that the parties make a contract including the relevant obligations.”

Revise: How to read a statuteE.g. TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT

52 Misleading or deceptive conduct              (1)  A corporation shall not, in trade

or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

            

Elements of a section:CorporationIn trade or commerceEngage in conductMisleading or deceptive

Defined by legislation (definitions section) or by courts (case law.)

LegislationSale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)

Contract for the sale of goods (not services)

Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth)

Contract for supply of goods or services by a corporation to a consumer

Sale of Goods Act6 Sale and agreement to sell (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract

whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration called the price. There may be a contract of sale between one part owner and another.

Trade Practices Act – Part V Division 2 Conditions and Warranties in Consumer Transactions

e.g. - s 70 Supply by description  (1)  Where there is a contract for the supply

(otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer …

Consumer s4B TPA     (1)  (a)  a person shall be …a consumer if, and only

if:             (i)  the price of the goods did not exceed the

prescribed amount; [$40,000]or            (ii)  where that price exceeded the prescribed

amount-- the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption or the goods consisted of a commercial road vehicle;

             and the person did not acquire the goods, or hold himself or herself out as acquiring the goods, for the purpose of re‑supply or for the purpose of using them up or transforming them, in trade or commerce, in the course of a process of production or manufacture or of repairing or treating other goods or fixtures on land; …

                                                                                                             

Corporation – extended definitions6 TPACorporation

foreign, trading or financial corporationPersons

in trade or commerce between either of the States or territories or between Australia and places outside Australia

using post or telephonic servicesactive within a territory

Be careful when using this section

s18 Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974(Cth)- s 70 Supply by description

(1)  Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, …

            

Correspondence with descriptionSGA s18: Sale by description

Where there isa contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; …

Sale by description?Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill [1971] 1AllER847

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) 54 CLR 49

Ashington Piggeries case:Viscount Dilhorne:

“Did the presence of DMNA merely affect the quality of the herring meal or did it make a difference in kind? If the former, then there was no failure to deliver in accordance with the description. If the latter, there was.”

Fitness for purposeSGA s19(1) Fitness for purpose(1)Where the buyer expressly or by implication

makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether the seller be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose: Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.

Trade Practices Act s71(2)      Where a corporation supplies … goods to

a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

Purpose made known?

Obvious purpose?Underpants – Grant v

Australian Knitting Mills

Reliance on seller’s judgement?

Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill.

Course of seller’s business?David Jones Ltd v Willis

(1934) 52 CLR 110

Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill

Not trade name?Reliance, not reputation

TPA s71Similar to s18Consumer requirementPurchase by trade name not a bar

E v Australian Red Cross Society (1992)

Provision of services – not supply of goods.

Merchantable qualitySale of Goods Act s19(2)

(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that

description (whether the seller be the manufacturer or not),

there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable

quality…

Trade Practices Act s71(1)  Where a corporation supplies… goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality,…

Merchantable quality?  66(2)  Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of this Division if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

Merchantable quality?

Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan (1987) ATPR 41-025

Rasell v. Garden City Vinyl and Carpet Centre Pty Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-152

Flooring:Mavis was particularly interested in flooring as she had difficulties keeping her slate tiles clean. She searched for low maintenance flooring and after extensive shopping decided on single sheet vinyl flooring. She saw just the thing at Discount Lino Barn, close to Kylie’s home. Kylie indicated that she didn’t share her mother’s preference for vinyl flooring as it was cold underfoot and had suggested kitchen carpet. Kylie and Mavis spoke to Mike at Discount Lino Barn who suggested under-floor heating could address Kylie’s temperature issues. Kylie provided details of the under floor heating options while her mother left the conference room to offer slices of her coffee cake to the other staff….

She is also angry about the flooring she has had installed. Despite Kylie’s protests she went with the single sheet vinyl, and did not have under floor heating installed. The vinyl, while easier to clean than the slate, is marking and scuffing badly however. She has only had it down 6 months, and already there are a number of wear marks. Her cupcake classes – which she runs 5 times a week and more often in school holidays – are now so popular that she has at least 20 students per class. Because of her renovations she has room for them all around her lovely new island bench, but the vinyl around the island bench almost looks like a race track.

It is as if her students have worn a path around the bench – and in only 6 months. The vinyl was quite expensive – as she had heavy grade domestic installed – but Mavis is very unhappy. She hasn’t yet paid the bill for the vinyl as she has been arguing with the company. They are, according to Mavis, now getting nasty, and want their $45,000 immediately.

FridgeShe also advised that her mother was having problems with Whitegoods World from which she had bought her fridge. Kylie advised that her mother required a “French door” fridge with freezer drawers underneath to accommodate the large baking trays she used for her cakes. She had ordered the fridge she needed from Whitegoods World but had experienced delivery problems.

Her oven purchase was much more successful than her fridge which, on the very day it was due to be delivered – not only did not arrive, but the shop called her to advise that delivery was delayed for one month. Mavis said to the shop keeper: “Well that’s no good to me. I ordered that fridge for today. I need that fridge today. I told you when I needed the fridge. The only reason I ordered from you was that you told me I could have it today. If you can’t give it to me today, you can just keep your fridge!! I don’t want it anymore.” Mavis then rang Quick Fridge and ordered and received another fridge that afternoon– suitable for her requirements.

However, one month later, Whitegoods World delivered the fridge originally ordered and demanded payment. Mavis refused to accept the fridge or to pay, and advised them that the order had been cancelled. They are threatening to sue Mavis for the price of the fridge - $5,500.

OvenMavis returned to the conference room. She advised that she had had to make a large coffee cake that morning, even though her preference would have been to make cup-cakes. In fact, one of her legal problems was her cup-cake oven. Cake Cookers is a specialist retailer which sells products designed for those who like to cook cakes. It retails a number of specialist pans and other baking utensils – many imported from America and not readily available in Australia - as well as a special range of cake ovens.

They are located in Broome – and Mavis lives in NSW, but Cake Cookers sells throughout Australia by catalogue. Mavis wanted a special cake oven in her new kitchen. She saw an oven that looked perfect for her in their catalogue – the picture showed 8 slide out patty pan trays instead of oven trays – exactly what she wanted.

She rang the store and spoke to Cathy. She told Cathy all about her cupcakes, her favourite recipes, and her interest in the patty pan oven in their catalogue. Cathy told her that the patty pan oven had eight slide out patty pan holders – instead of oven racks – and that each patty pan holder would take one dozen patty pans. Even better, they came with self cleaning silicone inserts. Mavis was delighted about the self cleaning but concerned that each tray would only take one dozen patty pans. Although after discussion with Cathy, she was convinced that the overall capacity of the oven was appropriate, and so she placed an order….

Mavis advised that even if she had known about the cake order she would have had difficulty fulfilling it because of problems with her newly installed cake oven. When the oven arrived she saw that instead of Australian sized delicate patty pan holders, the cake trays were American size muffin holders – and two trays were even jumbo sized Texas muffin size holders. This is not what Mavis wanted at all.Mavis rang Cathy and told her the oven was not what she had wanted at all, and not suitable for the cakes in which she specialised. Cathy said she was sorry that Mavis was disappointed, but there is nothing that they can do about it now. Mavis wants to know if she still has to pay the $8,000 for the special cake oven.