Advertisement

The Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 123–134 | Cite as

Existing duties and consideration

  • Paul Matthews
Article
  • 83 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Supra Note Trade Dispute Unjust Enrichment Privy Council Good Consideration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    [1979] Q.B. 705.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    [1980] 3 All E.R. 257.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    J. L. Mackie,Ethics-Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.g. J. Locke,Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book 2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See text at notes 14–19 below, and also the cases cited below at notes 23 and 24.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. L. Goodhart,English Contributions to the Philosophy of Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1949, 27–34.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. S. Atiyah,The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, passim.Google Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    P. S. Atiyah,Promises, Morals and Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981, Ch. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Simpson,supra note 9, at 617–619.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See Atiyah,supra note 8, at 167–180.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See the cases discussed by Atiyah,ibid. See Atiyah,.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leviathan, Part 1, Ch. 15, 208.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox v. Mackreth (1788) 2 Cox 320 at 321, 30 E.R. 148.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.g.Nichols v. Gould (1752) 2 Ves. Sur. 422, 28 E.R. 270.Google Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    [1960] P. Matthews, “Freedom, Unrequested Improvements, and Lord Denning”, 40Cambridge Law Journal (1981), 340.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 153, 162.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Cf. Horwood v. Millar’s Timber [1917] 1 K.B. 305,Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    (1860) 9 C.B.N.S. 159, 142 E.R. 62.Google Scholar
  24. 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. 25.
    (1881) 124 N.Y. 538.Google Scholar
  26. 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. 98Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    See e.g.Beswick v. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    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.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    (1809) 2 Camp. 317, 170 E.R. 1168.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Per Lord Ellenborough at 319–20, 1169; a similar case wasSwain v. West Ltd. [1936] 3 All E.R. 261.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    [1979] Q. B. 805.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    The case thus resembledHartley v. Portsonby (1857) 7 El. & Bl. 872, 119E.R. 1471, rather thanStilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    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. 35.
    (1861) 6 H.&N. 295.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Ibid. (1861) 6 H.&N. 295 at 300.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    See e.g. Treitel,supra note 21 at 75.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    See alsoShadwell v. Shadwell, supra note 23, andChichester v. Cobb (1866) 14 L.T. 433.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    [1975] A.C. 154.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Ibid. [1975] A.C. 154. at 168E.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    [1980] A.C. 614.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    [1980] 3 All E.R. 275.Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    W. N. Hohfeld.Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1923, Ch. 1.Google Scholar
  43. 45.
    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. 46.
    Cf. Holmes,supra note 24, at 235–237.Google Scholar
  45. 47.
    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.Google Scholar
  46. 48.
    (1731) 2 Str. 915, 93 E.R. 939.Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    [1982] 2 All E.R. 67.Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    Cf. the Law of Property Act 1925, s.40(1), andMonnickendam v. Leanse (1923) 39 T.L.R. 445.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Cf. Barton v. Armstrong [l976] A.C. 104.Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    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.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    [1956] 2 All E.R. 318.Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    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.Google Scholar
  53. 55.
    [1956] 2 All E.R. 318, 319H.Google Scholar
  54. 56.
    [1975] A.C. 154, 168F.Google Scholar
  55. 57.
    [1959] V.R. 197.Google Scholar
  56. 58.
    Ibid. [1959] V.R. 197. at 199. See alsoDunton v. Dunton (1892) 18 V.L.R. 114.Google Scholar
  57. 59.
    See text at notes 18 and 19.Google Scholar
  58. 60.
    McEvoy v. Belfast Banking Corporation [l935] A.C. 24, 43;Coulis v. Bagot’s Executor Co. (1967) 119 C.L.R. 460, 493.Google Scholar
  59. 61.
    Law of Property Act 1925, s.56(l).Google Scholar
  60. 62.
    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.Google Scholar
  61. 63.
    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.Google Scholar
  62. 64.
    [1968] A.C. 810, 826 B-C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Matthews
    • 1
  1. 1.University College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations