Robbie runs a fairground, Toppers, and hires a big dipper from

Fred for £3,000 per annum. Times are tough, however, and the
bad weather has affected business at the fairground. Robbie asks
Fred whether he can have a reduction in rent until he gets on his
feet again. He intends to use the money, thereby saved to
advertise the fairground more widely. Fred agrees to reduce
Robbie’s rent by £1,000 per annum until business improves.
Delighted, Robbie immediately spends £1,000 on advertising, in
the hope that it will attract more visitors. However, Fred now
regrets his promise and demands that Robbie pay him the full
amount of rent.
Spooks operates the ghost train at the fairground and receives a
50% share of the ticket sales. He wishes to buy his wife a new car
and needs some extra cash. He telephones Robbie and asks him
to increase his share of the ticket sales to 75% for a twelve-month

Ghost train operators

period.

are specialists and

extremely hard to find. However,
although Robbie does not want to lose Spooks, he will find it a
financial strain to fund the higher commission rate. Robbie asks
Spooks if he can think about this request for a few days. Spooks
agrees. The next day, however, Spooks gets an offer from another
fairground, offering a 75% share of the ticket sales to run their
ghost train. He goes to Robbie’s home and threatens to quit his
job unless Robbie gives him the 75% share of the ticket sales.
Robbie agrees. Three months later he tells Spooks that next
month he will return to the 50% share of the ticket sales.

Robbie asks his

cousin , Claude, who is a carpenter, to paint the
big wheel. He has often asked Claude to do jobs around the

fairground and always pays him. When

Claude finishes, Robbie is
delighted and says that he will pay
him £350. However, following a family argument,
Robbie now refuses to pay him. Advise Robbie.
Box 1 – General Box 2 – Past Box 3 – Box 4 – Box 5 – Existing Box 6
Rules Consideration Existing Duty Existing duty duty to pay debt Existing
at Law towards towards T
Promisor Party

Summary of Facts
We understand that Robbie (“R”) has formed certain contracts and promises have been
exchanged in them and our primary issue is to determine whether such promises are
binding or not according to the law of consideration defined in the case of Curie v. Misa
as give and take. Since there are multiple contracts, we shall discuss each separately:
(a) Fred’s Promise of Rent Reduction
 We note that Fred (“F”) has promised R to give his dipper on rental basis and R has
promised to pay GBP 3000 rent on annual basis. Since there is consideration from
both sides, the promises are binding. However, due to financial constraints, R has
requested F to reduce rent by GBP 1000/- until business improves and our primary
issue is to determine whether F’s rent reduction promise is binding or not.
If F sue’s R for payment of the entire rent, we note that according to the general rule
of consideration, there is no give and take since F has not received anything in return
from R for his rent reduction promise. However, R can raise the doctrine of
Promissory Estopple which was introduced in Hughes case and refined in the High
Trees case and holds a promise binding without consideration if there is a clear
promise, reliance on the promise, a pre-existing contract within which the promise
was given, unfairness if promise is taken back, it is only a defense and it is
suspensory doctrine meaning it only suspends the rights for the time being and does
not permanently change the contract. In our case, F has given a clear promise of rent
reduction which R has relied upon by investing in marketing, both parties were
already under a pre-existing rent contract, it is also unfair that F takes the promise
back as R completely relied on it, R will also use this as a defense when F claims
the rent money. Therefore, the courts will suspend the right of taking full rent only
until business improves thereafter R will have to pay full rent. In view of the above,
F’s promise will be binding.
(b) Robbie’s Additional Promise to Spooks
We understand that R has promised Spooks (“S”) 50% shares in the ticket sales for
ghost trains operating at his fairground whereas S has promised to operate the trains.
Since there is consideration from both sides, the promises are binding. However, R
has given an additional promise to increase S’s share to 75% of the ticket sales and
our issue is to determine if this additional promise is binding or not.
According to the general rule set out in Stilk v. Myrick and Hartley v. Ponsonby, an
additional promise given under an existing contract will only be binding if the other
person does something “considerably extra”. In our case, S’s original duty was to
operate the train and this is exactly what he has done i.e. there is nothing extra,
therefore, the promise will not be binding. However, S can raise the concept of
“practical benefit” introduced in the case of William v. Roffey i.e. if the promisor
gets an additional benefit on completion of the existing duty of the promisee then
this additional benefit will make any additional promise binding. In our case, as
ghost train operators are difficult to find so if S would have quit R would have had
to spend time and money in finding a new operator and by promising S extra, he
clearly got a practical benefit that his operations will keep running smoothly.
However, practical benefit is invalidated if there is economic duress i.e. the
 additional promise was given under a threat of quitting which is clearly the case in
our context. Therefore, the additional promise of 75% will not be binding.
(c) R’s promise to C
We understand that R has promised C GBP 350/- after he completed the paint work
and our issue is to determine if the promise is binding or not. According to the
general rule, the act has to come after the promise, if it comes before the promise
then this is past consideration which is invalid. Since, C completed the painting
before the promise, this will not be binding. However, past consideration can be
valid if there is a completed act and a clear promise, implied understanding of
payment (i.e. commercial context) and the act was at the promisor’s request. In our
case, C has completed the painting and R has given a clear promise of GBP 350/-,
although they are cousins, C has always gotten paid for any work done historically
therefore the context will be considered as commercial, accordingly, the act was
also done at the request of R. Since all aspects are met, past consideration will be
binding.