Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Existing duties and consideration

  • Published:
The Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

The analysis offered, in terms of “privity of obligation”, is a suitable basis for justifying the essence of consideration in contract, and indeed of contract itself. It may not be a very “progressive” analysis, but it is submitted that it accords with both popular expectation and the political and philosophical values of the common law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. [1979] Q.B. 705.

  2. [1980] 3 All E.R. 257.

  3. For which see, e.g., Law Revision Committee, 6th Interim Report, 1937, para 36; C. J. Hamson, “Reform of Consideration“, 54Law Quarterly Review(1938), 233, 237; and see also K. C. T. Sutton,Consideration Reconsidered, St. Lucia, University of Queensland Press, 1974, 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. L. Mackie,Ethics-Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E.g. J. Locke,Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book 2.

  6. See text at notes 14–19 below, and also the cases cited below at notes 23 and 24.

  7. A. L. Goodhart,English Contributions to the Philosophy of Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1949, 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. S. Atiyah,The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid. esp. at 139–149, referring to A. W. B. Simpson,A History of the Common Law of Contract, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. S. Atiyah,Promises, Morals and Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981, Ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E.g.Pillans v. Van Mierop (1765) 3 Burr. 1663, 97 E.R. 1035, overruled inRann v. Hughes (1778) 7 T.R. 350n., 101 E.R. 1014n; 4 Bro. P.C. 27, 2 E.R. 18.

  12. See Simpson,supra note 9, at 617–619.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Atiyah,supra note 8, at 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See the cases discussed by Atiyah,ibid. See Atiyah,.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leviathan, Part 1, Ch. 15, 208.

  16. Fox v. Mackreth (1788) 2 Cox 320 at 321, 30 E.R. 148.

  17. E.g.Nichols v. Gould (1752) 2 Ves. Sur. 422, 28 E.R. 270.

  18. E.g. see R. Goff and G. Jones,The Law of Restitution, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2nd edition, 1978, Ch. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  19. [1960] P. Matthews, “Freedom, Unrequested Improvements, and Lord Denning”, 40Cambridge Law Journal (1981), 340.

  20. (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 153, 162.

  21. See F. Pollock,Principles of Contract, London, Stevens, 1950, 133; G. Treitel,The Law of Contract, London, Stevens, 1979. 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. Horwood v. Millar’s Timber [1917] 1 K.B. 305,

  23. (1860) 9 C.B.N.S. 159, 142 E.R. 62.

  24. See alsoBainbridge v. Firmstone (1838) 8 Ad. & El. 743, 112 E.R. 1019, andBolton v. Madden (1873) L.R. 9 Q.B. 55. And see O. W. Holmes,The Common Law, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press, 1963, 229.

    Google Scholar 

  25. (1881) 124 N.Y. 538.

  26. See also Dunton v. Dunton (1892) 18 V.L.R. 144 and text at note 57. Cf. Arrale v. Costain Civil Engineering Ltd. [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 98

  27. See e.g.Beswick v. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58.

  28. E.g. Lord Scarman inWoodar Investment Development Corporation v. George Wimpey & Son Ltd. [1980] 1 All E.R. 571, 591c; Dillon J. inForster v. Silvermere Equestrian Centre Ltd. (1981) 42 P.& CR. 255, 258.

  29. (1809) 2 Camp. 317, 170 E.R. 1168.

  30. Per Lord Ellenborough at 319–20, 1169; a similar case wasSwain v. West Ltd. [1936] 3 All E.R. 261.

  31. [1979] Q. B. 805.

  32. The case thus resembledHartley v. Portsonby (1857) 7 El. & Bl. 872, 119E.R. 1471, rather thanStilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317.

  33. See e.g. Treitel,supra note 21. at 51;cf. Sutton,supra note 3 “Reform of Consideration” 54Law Quarterly Review (1938), 233, 237; at 19–24, and alsoHamer v. Sidway, supra note 25 (1881) 124 N. Y. 538.

    Google Scholar 

  34. (1861) 6 H.&N. 295.

  35. Ibid. (1861) 6 H.&N. 295 at 300.

  36. See e.g. Treitel,supra note 21 at 75.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See alsoShadwell v. Shadwell, supra note 23, andChichester v. Cobb (1866) 14 L.T. 433.

  38. [1975] A.C. 154.

  39. Ibid. [1975] A.C. 154. at 168E.

  40. [1980] A.C. 614.

  41. [1980] 3 All E.R. 275.

  42. W. N. Hohfeld.Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1923, Ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  43. E.g.Wilson v. Lombank Ltd. [1963] 1 All E.R. 740. This doctrine was abolished by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s.8. See,inter alia, N. E. Palmer,Bailment, Sydney, The Law Book Co., 1979, 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cf. Holmes,supra note 24, at 235–237.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cf. the similar role of mistake in, e.g.,Kelly v. Solari (1841) 9 M.&W. 54, 152 E. R. 24, where the plaintiff succeeded because payment was to secure some thing in return, and inWilson v. Thornbury (1875) L.R. 9 Ch. App. 239, where it was gift and the plaintiff failed.

  46. (1731) 2 Str. 915, 93 E.R. 939.

  47. [1982] 2 All E.R. 67.

  48. Cf. the Law of Property Act 1925, s.40(1), andMonnickendam v. Leanse (1923) 39 T.L.R. 445.

  49. Cf. Barton v. Armstrong [l976] A.C. 104.

  50. See e.g.Brown v. Brine (1875) 1 Ex.D. 5, andcf. Hamson,supra note 3 “Reform of Consideration”, 54Law Quarterly Review (1938), 233 237 at 240. Such a principle may even extend to serious wrongs not actually criminal offences:Gipps v. Hume (1861) 2 J.&H. 517, 70 E.R. 1163.

  51. [1956] 2 All E.R. 318.

  52. Under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1966 respectively. (The S.B.C. is now abolished by the Social Security Act 1980, s.6). Whether any duty is owed to the child is less certain:Downing v. Downing (Downing Intervening) [1976] Fam. 288.

  53. [1956] 2 All E.R. 318, 319H.

  54. [1975] A.C. 154, 168F.

  55. [1959] V.R. 197.

  56. Ibid. [1959] V.R. 197. at 199. See alsoDunton v. Dunton (1892) 18 V.L.R. 114.

  57. See text at notes 18 and 19.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McEvoy v. Belfast Banking Corporation [l935] A.C. 24, 43;Coulis v. Bagot’s Executor Co. (1967) 119 C.L.R. 460, 493.

  59. Law of Property Act 1925, s.56(l).

  60. Beswick v. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58, 89 B-F;Coulis v. Bagot’s Executor Co. (1967) 119 C.L. R. 460, 501-2;Woodar Investment v. George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. [1980] 1 All E.R. 571, 584h-585c; and see A. Briggs, “Privity Problems in Damages for Breach of Contract”, 131New Law Journal (1981), 343.

  61. 23Modern Law Review (1960), 373, 383-4;pace Treitel,supra note 21 G. Treitel,The Law of Contract, London, Stevens, 1979. 50–52 at 462–3.

  62. [1968] A.C. 810, 826 B-C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, UK

    Paul Matthews (Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. Paul Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The writer wishes to thank his colleagues in the Faculty of Laws, University College London, to whom an earlier draft of this paper was read, for their helpful comments. The writer is, however, responsible for any errors and omissions there may be.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matthews, P. Existing duties and consideration. Liverpool Law Rev 4, 123–134 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185317

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185317

Keywords

Search

Navigation