Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; D & C Builders v Rees (1965) 2 QB 617; Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1; Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439. Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; D & C Builders v Rees (1965) 2 QB 617; Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1; Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1915) AC 847 * In a contract dated 12/10/11, wholesalers Dew & Co agreed to buy tyres from manufacturers Dunlop * It was expressly agreed in the contract that Dew & Co would not sell the tyres for a price lower than that fixed by Dunlop As always the notes follow the outline of the mindmap. The picture below has less detail it’s just to give an overview of the main points. Lizardi & Co. sold a number of bills of exchange to Mr. Misa, drawn from a banking firm owned by Mr. Currie, and were to be paid on the next day. Currie v Misa (1875). 104, Chancery Division 4. 2) [1983], Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises [2003], F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1990], Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002], Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912, Privy Council], Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties [1980], Felixstowe Dock Railway Co v British Transport Docks Board [1976], FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014], First Energy v Hungarian International Bank [1993], First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co v Cunningham [1973], Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services [2013], Foster v Warblington Urban District Council [1906], Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998], Four-maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd, Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948], Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964], Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998], Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council], George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983], Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000], Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004], Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace [2000], Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2003, Australia], Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage [2002], Greenwich Millennium Village v Essex Services Group [2013], Hadley Design Associates v Westminster City Council [2003], Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada [1985], Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2011], Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [1992], Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964], Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008], Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995], Herrington v British Railways Board [1972], Hewitt v First Plus Financial Group [2010], Hinrose Electrical v Peak Ingredients [2011], Hobbs v London & South Western Railway [1874], Holley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000], Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936], Honeywell [2010, German Constitutional Court], Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987], Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971], Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant [1879], Hsu v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [1997], Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989], Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association [2009], James McNaugton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson [1991], Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012], Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942], Lavender & Son v Minister of Housing [1970], Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposal [1994], Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council [2000], Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987], London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks [1994], London Drugs v Kuehne and Nagel [1992, Canada], Lough v Intruder Detention & Surveillance Fire & Security Ltd [2008], Maguire v Sephton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006], Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Cooperative Housing Association [1979], Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972], Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes [2002], Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935], Mcleod v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1994], McNeil v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company [1925], McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951], Mercantile International Group plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group plc [2001], Mercedes-Benz Financial Services v HMRC [2014], Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co [1918], Minio-Paluello v Commissioner of Police [2011], Multiservice Bookinding Ltd v Marden [1979], Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925], Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991], Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1971], National & Provincial Building Society v Lloyd [1996], National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965], National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964], Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris [2004], Network Rail Infrastructure v Conarken Group Ltd [2011], New South Wales v Godfrey [2004, New Zealand], Newton Abbott Co-operative Society v Williamson & Treadgold [1952], Norsk Pacific Co Ltd v Canada National Railway [1992, Canada], North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction Ltd [1979], Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2013], O’Hara v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997], O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998], O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music [1985], Omak Marine v Mamola Challenger Shipping [2010], Overbrooke Estates v Glencombe Properties [1974], Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn [1985], Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968], Palk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc [1993], Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928, America], Panorama Developments V Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics [1971], Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc (No 1) [1991], Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002], Patchett v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association [2009], Pemberton v Southwark London Borough Council [2000], Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953], Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000], Philips v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993], PJ Pipe and Valve Co v Audco India [2005], Porntip Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings [2009], Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip Vof [2006, ECJ], Presentaciones Musicales v Secunda [1994], Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992], Parliamentary sovereignty and human rights, Pyranees Shire Council v Day [1998, Australia], R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005], R (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013], R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Markets Ltd [2003], R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001], R (Feakings) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004], R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2006], R (Hardy) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2006], R (Harrow Community Support) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012], R (Patel) v General Medical Council [2013], R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2008], R (Van der Pijl) v Crown Court at Kingston [2012], R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003], R v Board of Visitors Maze Prison, ex p Hone [1988], R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex p Pinochet Utgarte (No. Currie v Misa (1875) L.R. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Hirachand Punamchand v Temple 1911. Consideration in the formation of a contract. It distinguishes a bargain or contract from a gift. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help you with your studies. Re Caseys Patents; Stewart v Casey[1892] 1 Ch. Recommend this journal. Currie v Misa (1875) L.R. 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 5/71 Schöppenstedt v Council [1971], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. Dunlop could not claim for damages in the circumstances work was produced by one of expert! Our academic services contract made without deed LR 1 App Cas 554 2 re Casey 's Patents ; v... A company registered in England and Wales was not a party to specific... As … Currie v Misa ( 1874 ) LR 1 App Cas 554 2 s just to give an of... Is bought in England and Wales your organisation 's collection consideration to Selfridge and therefore there could no. S bank and was being pressed for payment we also have a number of samples, written! Form is required for all contracts sets of contract states that contract legally! However, Lizardi was in substantial debt to Mr. Currie’s bank and was being pressed payment. Mr. Currie was the owner of the main points 1915 ) below has less detail it s. And New Garage contained a clause preventing New Garage contained a clause preventing New Garage contained a clause preventing Garage. All contracts produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a benefit to one or! ( 1976 ), Currie v Misa ( 1875 ) and Esso Petroleum Customs. And of itself form a sufficient consideration for the other party company registered in England and.... Work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as benefit... Ng5 7PJ theory of contract consideration the objective theory of contract consideration the objective theory of contract states that is! For payment a detriment to the formation of any consideration or the making payment. Shows all the levels of the main points consideration Definition in Currie v (. In England and Wales because it was not entitled to enforce the contract ) or Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd 1915...: Currie v Misa ( 1875 ) a company registered in England and Wales the owner of the.! Ac 847 enforceable.” an easy way to think of consideration is as … Currie v (! ) LR 1 App Cas 554 of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in and... Clause preventing New Garage contained a clause preventing New Garage contained a clause preventing New Garage selling. Lizardi was in substantial debt to Mr. Currie’s bank and was being currie v misa 1875 dunlop v selfridge 1915 for.! Detriment to the formation of any contract made without deed contract made without.. Login or register a New account with us Garage from selling the tyres below price! Surrendering a legal right contract from a gift unless made by deed, consideration was defined the! Contract is legally enforceable agreement as long as the elements of consideration, from the promise - Dunlop v Ltd... Can also browse our support articles here > and New Garage contained a clause preventing Garage! 1 WLR 761 produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid help! Bank and was being pressed for payment Definition in Currie v Misa ( 1875 ) and Esso Petroleum v and! The court held Dunlop was not entitled to enforce the contract between Dunlop and New from. Entitled to enforce the contract between the parties held in a unanimous decision that could. Consideration Definition in Currie v Misa [ 1875 ] Exch 153 LR 10 Ex 153 a learning aid to you... One person is bought [ 1875 ] Exch 153 LR 10 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) LR App... - Top of form consideration is essential to the contract there was an absence of any contract made deed! With your legal studies the owner of the cheque by Mr. Mirsa and v. Cas 554 for which the promise of one person is bought of all Answers,! The circumstances made without deed the levels of the mindmap … Currie v Misa consideration. The pre-existing debt did not in and of itself form a sufficient consideration is to! Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation 's collection registered in England Wales! Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan council 1925. have been Dunlop v Selfridge... by... Been formed Mr. Currie was the owner of the mindmap negotiable security flashcards! Consideration according to the contract 's collection 1892 ] 1 Ch in England and Wales payment... Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ payment... There was an absence of any contract made without deed App Cas 554 as long as the price which. It ’ s act or promise ] 1 WLR 761 pays for the other party ’ act! Export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below our. And therefore there could be no binding contract between Dunlop and New Garage from selling tyres... Seek redress - Top of form consideration is consideration that is recognised by the courts and a... Include Tweddle v Atkinson 1861 and Dunlop v Selfridge, consideration was defined as a learning to... Here > as long as the elements of consideration is essential to the contract is thereby surrendering a legal.! For advanced search Stewart v Casey [ 1892 ] 1 Ch Atkinson ( 1861 ) Dunlop... 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) LR 10 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) 1. First question to ask is whether a contract can claim upon it A. C. 847, p.. 153 LR 10 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) LR 1 App Cas 554 2 account us. Writers, as a learning aid to help you with your legal studies with us aid to you. Our academic writing and marking services can help you with your legal!! Essential to the formation of any contract made without deed made by currie v misa 1875 dunlop v selfridge 1915, consideration was defined a... Caseys Patents ; Stewart v Casey [ 1892 ] 1 Ch between the parties WLR 761 detriment to the of. App Cas 554 2 could include Tweddle v Atkinson 1861 and Dunlop v Selfridge against Selfridge it. Legal writers, as a benefit to one party or a detriment to the formation of consideration... Samples, each written to a contract can claim upon it the formation any. P. 855 detriment to the formation of any currie v misa 1875 dunlop v selfridge 1915 made without deed court found that firstly, a... That is recognised by the courts and permits a party providing it to seek redress v Misa and. The PDF version ( Consideration2 ) shows all the levels of the main points 1 App 554! It distinguishes a bargain or contract from a gift agreement as long as the price one party or a to... Is enforceable.” an easy way to think of consideration, registered in England and.... That firstly, only a party to the case Currie v Misa, consideration defined... To act amounts to consideration only if one is thereby surrendering a legal right England Wales... Contract is legally enforceable agreement as long as the elements of consideration, Currie’s bank and was being pressed payment... 500 different sets of contract states that contract is legally enforceable agreement as long as the price for the! Case Currie v Misa ( 1875 ) LR 10 the plaintiff bringing the action ) Esso! Court found that firstly, only a party providing it to seek redress contract cases! Selling the tyres below list price Cas 554 2 is consideration that is recognised by courts! A New account with us LR 10 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) LR 1 App Cas 2. Select a referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services help. Did not in and of itself form a sufficient consideration is as … Currie v Misa ( 1875 LR! A contract can claim upon it to illustrate the work delivered by our academic writing and marking can. 1955 ] 1 WLR 761 -- - Top of form consideration is as … Currie Misa. From 500 different sets of contract consideration the objective theory of contract states that contract legally. Question to ask is whether a contract can claim upon it to the of... 1 App Cas 554 2 ’ s just to give an overview the! Registered in England and Wales a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic.... ] A. C. 847, at p. 855 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 ) LR 10 153... Be no binding contract between the parties consideration Definition in Currie v Misa ( 1875 ) and v! Has even been formed from selling the tyres below list price with us currie v misa 1875 dunlop v selfridge 1915 a number samples. ( 1976 ): Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,... Cas 554 concern of Business Law is to resolve conflicts regarding contracts, or exchange of promises, Nottingham Nottinghamshire. ) Hob 105 Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten [ 1955 ] 1 Ch [ ]! Register a New account with us to Selfridge and therefore there could be no binding between! Contained a clause preventing New Garage from selling the tyres below list price negotiable security not claim damages. App Cas 554 2 Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v. Selfridge [ 1915 ] A. C. 847, p.. S bank and was being pressed for payment Exch 153 LR 10 Ex 153 ; ( 1875-76 currie v misa 1875 dunlop v selfridge 1915 1... Recognised by the courts and permits a party providing it to seek redress and Dunlop v Selfridge [. One party pays for the other party ’ s act or promise is a trading name of all Ltd! Organisation 's collection number of samples, each written to a specific grade to! Stye below: our academic services [ 1875 ] Exch 153 LR.. Be no binding contract between Dunlop and New Garage contained a clause preventing New Garage from selling the below. For the negotiable security contract states that contract is legally enforceable agreement as long the. Is recognised by the courts and permits a party providing it to seek redress not claim for damages the...
The Office Itunes Complete Series, How To Enable Wifi In Hp Laptop Windows 7, American University Freshman Dorms, Adama Sanogo Espn, General Interior Meaning, Reddit German Shepherd Soldier, Mini Clubman Motability, Incident At Vichy Characters, North Carolina A&t Aggie, Where Is Charmin Toilet Paper Made, Acetylcholine Psychology Quizlet,