Case establishing that performance beyond contractual duty can constitute valid consideration if it involves substantially different obligations.

Thomas v Thomas established that consideration in contract law need not be adequate or equivalent in value to the promise, only that it must be sufficient and have some legal value. The case demonstrates that courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration provided it has some recognizable worth in law.

The Court of Appeal held that a father's promise to pay maintenance could be supported by consideration even where the mother had a legal duty to maintain the child.

Walton Stores negotiated a lease with Maher, who demolished an existing building and began constructing a new one in reliance on the expectation of a contract. Walton Stores allowed Maher to continue construction while negotiations stalled, then withdrew. The High Court of Australia held that promissory estoppel could operate as a cause of action where unconscionable conduct induced detrimental reliance.

Foakes v Beer established the rule that payment of a smaller sum cannot satisfy a debt of a larger sum, even if the creditor agrees to accept the lesser amount. This case affirmed the rule in Pinnel's Case that part payment of an existing debt is not good consideration, and confirmed the general rule that an accord without satisfaction is unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal established that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action to found a claim, only as a defence.

This case established the doctrine of promissory estoppel in English law, where a landlord was prevented from claiming full rent arrears after accepting reduced payments during wartime. The decision created a new equitable principle that promises can be binding even without consideration in certain circumstances.

Merritt v Merritt established that agreements between spouses can be legally binding contracts when made after separation; the husband's argument that there was no consideration failed, since the wife's payment of the outstanding mortgage was ample consideration. The case distinguished between domestic arrangements made in harmony versus those made when the relationship has broken down, with the latter presumed to have legal intent.

Foundational case establishing the doctrine of promissory estoppel, where representations can prevent enforcement of strict legal rights.

Court establishes classic definition of consideration requiring benefit or detriment

Hochster v De La Tour established the doctrine of anticipatory breach in contract law, allowing a claimant to sue immediately when the other party repudiates a contract before performance is due. This case created an important exception to the general rule that breach must occur before an action can be commenced.

Performing existing duties provides no consideration for new contractual promises

A case establishing that tickets issued after payment cannot contain effective exclusion clauses unless reasonable notice is given before or at the time of contracting.

A leading case establishing that exclusion clauses displayed in hotel rooms cannot be incorporated into contracts made at reception, as notice comes too late.

Performance of existing legal duty cannot constitute consideration for a new promise.

Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC established the modern test for frustration of contract in English law. The House of Lords held that frustration occurs when performance becomes radically different from what was originally contemplated, rejecting both the 'implied term' and 'just and reasonable' theories.

House of Lords decision establishing that frustration requires the contractual adventure to become fundamentally different, not merely more expensive or inconvenient.

Beswick v Beswick established that a third party beneficiary of a contract cannot sue in their own right due to the doctrine of privity of contract, but may obtain the contractual benefit if they can sue in a representative capacity. The case confirmed the strict application of privity while demonstrating how it might be circumvented in appropriate circumstances.

Williams v Roffey limited: does not apply to part payment of debts.

The Court of Appeal restored orthodoxy by holding that face-to-face contracts are presumed valid and only voidable for fraud, not void for mistake as to identity. This decision effectively overruled the approach in Ingram v Little.

A wife charged her interest in matrimonial property to secure her husband's business debts. The Court of Appeal held that to establish undue influence (actual or presumed), the transaction must be shown to be manifestly disadvantageous to the complainant. The court found actual undue influence by the husband but dismissed the claim because the transaction was not manifestly disadvantageous to the wife, so the bank could enforce the charge.

Court of Appeal decision limiting damages for mental distress in contract to cases involving physical inconvenience and discomfort, with awards to be modest.

Proprietary estoppel may fail where equity has been satisfied by acquiescence

Performing duty owed to third party constitutes valid consideration for new contracts.

TMMC held a patent and granted licenses to TECo, charging compensation for use. TMMC promised to suspend compensation during WWII but later sought to resume charges. The House of Lords held that a party who gives a promise not to enforce strict legal rights must give reasonable notice before resuming those rights.

Payment of lesser sum cannot discharge greater debt without fresh consideration.

A father promised to discharge his son's promissory note in return for the son's promise to stop complaining about the distribution of the father's estate. After the father died, the executor sued on the note. The court held the promise not to complain was not valid consideration.

Payment of lesser sum cannot discharge greater debt without fresh consideration.

The House of Lords distinguished between actual and presumed undue influence, holding that manifest disadvantage is not required for actual undue influence and banks are not automatically on notice when loans appear for joint purposes.

Commercial agreements presumed to create legal relations despite 'ex gratia' descriptions.

House of Lords decision recognizing that damages for mental distress can be awarded where peace of mind is an important object of the contract, even without physical inconvenience.

Proprietary estoppel can grant full ownership where reliance and detriment are sufficiently substantial.

Cannot take benefit of deed without accepting corresponding burdens - mutual benefit and burden

Forbearance to sue can constitute consideration even if claim would fail

Total failure of consideration allows recovery of payments under frustrated contracts.

Pre-contract reliance expenditure recoverable as alternative to expectation damages when foreseeable.