如果这都不算爱

1、Contract Law Cases· Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co (1983) negligence by security firm excluded by limitation clause被告提供安保服务，当原告的船停在港口时，因为被告的疏忽，原告的船沉没了，合同称被告not be liable for any amount exceeding £1,000 in any one claim或者not be liable for more than £10,000 in any twelv

2、e month period，法庭认为这个合同里的限制责任适用。· Balfour v Balfour (1919) domestic arrangements are presumed not to be contracts一对夫妻住在不同的地方，丈夫每月给妻子寄30块钱，后来他停止给她钱，法院判丈夫无罪，这是个domestic arrangement, because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. At the time the agreement wa

3、s made the court did not consider that the marriage had broken down.· Barry v Davies (2000) In an auction without reserve, there is a unilateral offer to accept the highest bidD是个拍卖师，再一次without reserve的拍卖中拒绝了出价最高的B. Court held D和owner 没有contract, 但是D和B之间有一个collateral contract(附属协定)，而D的这个行为就是bre

4、ach contract.· Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC(1990) requests to tender are invitations to treatD招标管理航班，标书不能迟noon on 17 March 1983，原告post了标书at 11am on 17 March 1983,本来信会被collected在noon,结果没有。D没有考虑原告的标书，觉得他迟交了。· Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (1979) battle of the

5、 forms: a counter-offer with standard terms is not an acceptanceSeller的contract里写了一个条款，Buyer给Seller了一个offer，这里没有那个条款，Seller签署了并给了Buyer. Court held Seller接受了 offer, buyer got the last shot.如果双方都有一个well-drafted standard terms,很有可能最后就判no contact exists.· Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) offer cannot b

6、e withdrawn after it has been accepted; postal acceptance occurs on posting1号时，V给B一个offer；8号时，V写信说要revocation；11号时，B收到offer当天电话告知accept；15号时，又post了一封信accept；20号收到V的refuse信. Court held在11号B告知V的时候合同成立，在已经acceptance的情况写，撤回是invalid的.· Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)using patent remedy deeme

7、d acceptance of unilateral offer公司卖smoke ball,说闻了就不感冒，一老太太闻了，却感冒了，她认为公司应该按广告上说的给她200块钱赔偿，公司不给。法庭判老太太赢，Caebolic 有intend to bound。同时 offers made to the whole world are perfectly valid.· Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd (1947) promissory estoppel prevents lack of consideration be

8、ing a bar to contract formation在1939年，plaintiff从defendant那里租了一些flats，他们约好的租金是2500，后来发生战争，租来的房子都空闲了，所以plaintiff没有钱付房租了，他和defendant商量在战争期间，租金减为1250，战争结束后，房子又满了，房东找他要战争期间的房租，法庭判不同给。· Chandler v Webster (1904) coronation procession; losses lie where they fall in frustrated contractsWebster租一间房给C，让他

9、看coronation，他付了100磅，还剩41磅没付。结果coronation cancel了。Court held这个obligation是pay the full contractual price，是发生在frustrate的event之前的，所以C要付全款。· Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940) collapsing deck-chair shows receipt may not be a contractChapelton问Barry租了椅子，拿了ticket作为凭证，但这个ticket里面有exclusion

10、 clause C没读，后坐这椅子受伤了。Court held 这个ticket只是一个receipt，一个reasonable person不会认为里面有exclusion clause，所以这个clause是ineffective的。· Chappell and Co v Nestle (1960) even chocolate wrappers may be consideration to support a contractNestle是推销公司，任何人集齐三张巧克力纸就能获得一张唱片，Chappell是唱片公司，说这不对等。Court held只要sufficient，不

11、需要adequate。· Collins v Godefroy (1831) complying with a duty imposed by law is not consideration for a contractGodefroy让Collins attend a civil trial and give evidence。C参加了但没有给evidence。之后G答应给C钱但没兑现。Court held当G让C参加的时候，按照法律C就是应该要参加的。C做的只是required by law的事情，所以没有provide consideration。· Combe v

12、 Combe (1951) High Trees House' promissory estoppel cannot found new actions丈夫答应支付赡养费给他分居的妻子，但没有。妻子起诉，但驳回。没有协议，而允诺禁反言(promissory estoppel)是剑不是盾。· Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd (1951) beads and sequins' misrepresentation defeats exclusion clauseCurtis 把衣服送到Chemical地方去干洗，她在

13、sign前Chemical告诉她exclusion clause是关于damage to beads之类的，但实际是指所有的damage，后衣服弄坏了。Court held 因为defendant misrepresented了这个clause的effect，所以不能rely on 这个clause。· Dunlop v Selfridge (1945) X sells types to Y who sells to Z; X has no standing to sue Z under the contracts between X and Y, or Y and Z原告向一家批发

14、商Dew公司出售轮胎，为了维持轮胎的价格，他们在与Dew公司签订的合同中加入一条规定，不得按照低于一定水平的价格卖轮胎，并且，在Dew向任何一个零售供应商供货时，必须让零售商作出书面保证，也要服从这个规定。后Dew将部分轮胎批发给被告，并且从被告处得到了原告要的书面保证，但被告却违反了合同和书面保证，以低价出售轮胎，原告遂起诉违反协议。原告败诉。· Edwards v Skyways Ltd (1964) commercial dealing - including employer-employee - presumed to create contract航空公司说如果他们的飞行

15、员没工作了就能拿到退休金，结果没给，法庭判必须给。The subject of the agreement was commercial in nature and there was meeting of mind - an intention. The airline was unable to show that legal relations were not intended. There was no evidentence to show that the transaction was intended to be binding in honour only.· E

16、ntores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation Ltd (1955) Telex communication of acceptance of offer must be read to be validEntores在London，Miles在Holland，Entores给了offer，Miles accept，后来有dispute了。Entores要在English court提出breach contract， Miles反对，说合同是在Holland完成的。Court held acceptance是在Holland完成的，但只有当它communica

17、te to offeror的时候才valid 所以English court有权力。· Errington v Errington (1951) mortgage payments can be consideration; consideration remains executory until mortgage redeemed父亲说儿子媳妇一直供房，供完就把房子给他们，后来老头死了，儿子媳妇继续供房，遗孀想拒绝。Court held这个promise connot be revoked,老友这是一unilateral offer, 儿子媳妇可做可不做，但一旦做了就不能revo

18、ke了。· Esso v Customs and Excise Commissioners (1976) offering a free gift can found a contract, if there is some form of (non-monetary) considerationEsso促销：任何人买了4加仑的油就能得到一个免费的世界杯纪念币。法院纠结的是，这些硬币算不算贩卖，如果是的话，Esso要交税。Esso觉得这是个促销的免费小礼物，not intended to have legal effect。法院认为There was an intention to

19、create legal relations.但是，the coins were not exchanged for a money consideration and therefore the coins were not for resale.· Fisher v Bell (1961) displaying flick-knife in shop window deemed not to be an offer for sale'当店主将弹簧刀摆在橱窗内时，店主被指控犯有出售弹簧刀罪。议会认为弹簧刀是危险物，想使其不被买卖。有人可能已经考虑了分区法院的理由：“弹簧刀是

20、危险物品；将它摆在商店橱窗里的人想要卖掉这个危险物品；因此他犯了出售弹簧刀罪。”但是，Parker勋爵裁决店主之所为不是出售弹簧刀，而是邀路人来商店买它，因此，被告无罪。· Foakes v Beer (1884) a willingness to pay part of a debt promptly does not itself represent a consideration, and cannot found a contractFoakes欠Beer钱，Beer说如果现在给钱，不算利息，不会sue，Foakes还钱后Beer反悔，要求利息。Court held Beer

21、的promise是不sue，但是Foakes没有sufficient consideration。· Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925) carrying out a statutory duty may be consideration to found a contract if the manner of so doing is above and beyond the call of dutyGlasbrook要求Glamorgan警察帮他维持秩序，必须要增派人手，警察认为巡逻的人已经够了，但Glasbrook同意pay for

22、this，所以警察就加派了人手，后Glasbrook反悔，说这是警察的legal duty。Court held 警察free to choose which method of protect是最effective的，在这里，因为这个Glasbrook，他们provide more protection than necessary，所以provide了good consideration。· Harbutt's Plasticine v Wayne Tank (1970) A significant breach of contract may defeat an exc

23、lusion clause原告的工厂被烧毁了，因为Wayne做了个不合适的管道。管道的某个部分被打开，并且没人看管。原告必须建个新工厂，不然没法继续他的business.so· Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1989) Sale of Goods act not breached if buyer should not have relied on seller's description买卖双方都是伦敦的美术品的商人，买卖的标的物是画。卖方声称该画的作者是Gabriele M

24、ünter。买方的雇员查看了画，卖方则表示对画知之甚少，更不知道Gabriele Münter是何人。买方后来发现该幅画是赝品，于是起诉要求卖方返还价款，理由是画的买卖是1979年货物买卖法第13(1)条规定的凭描述买卖，而卖方违反的1979年货物买卖法第14(2)条默示的条款，即画是具有可销售质量的 (of merchantable quality)。高院认为买方并没有依赖关于画是Münter之作的描述，因此画的买卖并不是凭描述的买卖，而且法院认为买方并未证明该画不具有可销售质量。· Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) agr

25、eement to comply with a contract may be consideration for a new contract, if changed circumstances (numerous desertions from ship) make it difficult to comply少了一半船员，船长对剩下的一般说，跟他回London的话，就给extra money,船员就努力工作，把船开回了London,船长拒绝给钱，法庭认为必须给。Sailing the ship back to London in an unseaworthy condition was

26、more than the original contract required. Extra money is good consideration.· Harris v Nickerson(1932) advertisement of auction is an invitation to treat, not an offerN登广告说某天要拍卖多少多少东西，H 长途跋涉来了却发现N只auction了一部分东西，怒了,告N。法庭判N无罪。The advertisement of the auction was not a guarantee that is would be h

27、eld but simply a declaration of intention or an invitation to treat and so there was no contract.· Hillas v Arcos (1932) courts can interpret vague terms in contract (fair specification'') if parties' intentions clear from previous dealingsArcos与Hillas签订了协议1930年提供给他一定数量一定质量size的timb

28、er，并规定Hillas有option在1930年购买另一批timber，但没说质量size，后Acros卖给了别人，说这个contract太vague。Court held 虽然没具体说，但可以implied根据previous seasons dealing and normal practise。· Hoenig v Isaacs (1952) party injured by breach of contract cannot assume his responsibilities fully discharged原告同意装修被告的公寓，750镑分两次完成，原告完成后，被告因

29、为不满意一些家具被损坏所以拒绝支付最后一部分，那些家具价值56镑。Court held原告已经执行了大部分合同的内容，所以应该支付钱然后减去损坏的就可以了。 · Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) postal acceptance of offer valid at posting, even if never received被告申请获得原告公司的股票，原告公司接到申请后很快寄回了一封信向被告配发股票，但被告从未收到这封信。3年后公司进行清算时，要求被告作为公司的一名股东，应当偿还他拥有的公司股票所欠的认缴款项，被告拒绝付款，并称自己与

30、原告公司之间并无合同，因而自己不是原告公司的股东。原告败诉。· Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Cpy (1877) promissory estoppel prevents landlord evicting tenant during negotiations房东给了租客6个月去维修损坏，否则就不租给他了。然后双方谈判买卖房子，本来以为财产转让会发生。所以租客没有维修，因为他觉得这是房东的任务。最户一分钟买卖谈崩。允诺禁反言阻止了房东驱逐访客。· Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) exclusion clause

31、 cannot be incorporated by past dealings if sporadic原告在5年内使用了被告的车库几次，每次他都要签一个损坏赔偿的文件。这次是电话交涉的，也没有免责条款。车库因为维修损坏了车，被告觉得这次可以通过之前的交易援引免责条款。法庭认为之前的交易达不到足够的交易数，不能援引。· Hyde v Wrench (1840) a counter-offer is not an acceptanceD卖1200，P拒绝。D又提出1000，P说950.D说不行，P说那就1000。法庭认为D可以选择不卖给P了. The plaintiffs action

32、s showed that he intended to reject both the defendants offers and this meant that he was no longer able to revive them by changing his mind and making a subsequent acceptance.· Jones v Padavatton (1969) domestic arrangements are presumed not to be contracts母亲住在美国West Indian，女儿儿子住在华盛顿，母亲同意，如果女儿

33、放弃现有的工作，到英国攻读法律成为出庭律师，母亲将负担女儿的生活费用。女儿这样做了。母亲改变协议，同意女儿住在母亲在英国的房子，免收租金，同时允许女儿将其中一间出租，租金用来支付女儿的费用。当母女俩吵翻后，母亲赶女儿出门，女儿告母亲违约。本案属于家庭安排，安排内容不明确，所以无合同。· Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) past endeavours can be consideration for contract if carried out at request of beneficiary and in expectation of rewardB

34、杀了人，他让L帮忙去国王那里讨个赦免。L就专程去London,帮B弄到了一个赦免，事成之后，B承诺会付给L100块，结果没给，L把B告了，法庭认为应该给。· L'estrange v Graucob (1934) ignorance of exclusion clause in supply of faulty cigarette machine held not to defeat the exclusionclaimant问defendant买了一个machine，没看contract但sign了，里面有小字体的exclude clause for implied ter

35、ms，后machine doesnt work。Court held因为她sign了 就要bound by the terms。· Liverpool CC v Irwin (1976) terms may be implied into a contract based on legal obligationIrwin夫妇租了Liverpool的flat，但这个房子设施很差都坏掉了，Irwin夫妇起诉说Liverpool没有对这个房子maintain adequately。Court held L没有take reasonable care to· L Schuler A

36、G v Wickman Machine Tools Ltd (1973) stating that a term is a condition does not necessarily make it soS是工具销售商，W是授权销售的公司。 合同有个condition是W会provided a sales person to each named company once a week。这就意味着一星期1400次。W就没有一一做到，S就起诉了他违反合同。法庭认为虽然合同说这个是condition,但其实是个warranty.· May and Butcher JR (19

37、34) courts will not enforce a contract that is unintelligibleMay想要purchase R的一些器材，agreement写的是price和date of payment以后再decide from time to time。后break down了。Court held no contract，因为essential term仍等着以后的negotiation，too incomplete to enforce。· McCutcheon v MacBrayne (1964) ferry sinks, and exclusi

38、on clause sinks with it; exclusion clause not incorporated by sporadic prior dealing原告的车被淹没在轮渡运输中，原告之前用过几次这样的轮渡运输，有时他签了免责条款，有时没有。这次他并没有被要求签，被告想援引之前的免责条款。法庭认为，之前的签署没有一致性，不成立，要赔偿。· Merritt v Merritt (1970) domestic arrangement may be contracts, despite presumption to the contrary, if facts suppor

39、t this view丈夫和别的女人在一起了，他承诺给前妻一半财产，但是没有兑现，法庭认为前妻赢。因为the presumption against an intention to create legal relation does not apply when the parties are separated.· Neale v Merrit (1930) Acceptance of offer must be on terms of offerM买给N土地一次性支付280镑。N 接受了，把80镑寄去，并答应支付50镑每月分期付款。法庭认为这根本不是接受，这是 counter

40、offer。· Nicolene v Simmons (1953) Meaningless terms in contract does not void the entire contractNicolene order steel bars from Simmonds, 写明是the usual conditions of acceptance，但no usual conditions existed.后来Simmonds fail to deliver说那个term太vague。Court held 这个clause是meanless的，可以severed from the c

41、ontract，而剩下的agreement是certain and complete的，所以可以被enforced。· Olley v Marlborough Court (1949) Exclusion clause must be notified to affected party before contract formedOlley在M的hotel订了房间 pay完之后到了房间才看到这个exclusion clause说东西被偷概不负责，后东西被偷了。Court held contract是在check in 的时候made的，在contract make之后 notice

42、才communicate to了claimant，所以是ineffective的。· Parker v Clark (1960) 一对老夫妻C邀请他的侄女和其丈夫P来合住，P说这样他们不得不卖掉自己的房子。C说他们死后会把房子给P和他们女儿各一部分。P就把房子卖了。后来C和P翻脸，C让他们离开，P起诉C违约。法庭认为C要赔偿P。· Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) party who relies on exclusion clause must take reasonable trouble to bring it to atte

43、ntion原告将一个价值24.5镑的小包存入被告的寄存处，被告给他一张存物凭证，凭证的吼吼印着数字和存物的提起，并且有“注意背后”的字样。在凭证背后印着免责条款，规定：寄存物的价值超过10英镑的，寄存处对超过的部分不负责任。后原告的小包丢失，原告要求赔偿。陪审团发现，原告根本没有读那个凭证。陪审团认为原告没有读那个凭证，他也没有义务要这样做，所以原告胜诉。英国法院提出了一个免责条款的当事人是否让对方“合理地知道”免责条款。也就是说当事人必须证明对方知道或应该知道合同的条款。· Partridge v Crittendon (1968) advert in newspaper is a

44、n invitation to treat, not an offer广告登卖一种受保护的鸟，结果被人告了，法庭认为判这个公司无罪。The advertisement was only an invitation to treat because nowhere was there any indication of an expression of intention to be bound.· Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1952) retail contract for sale formed at chec

45、kout, not on selection of goods一个人从药架子拿药下来，检查人员说Boots违法，法庭判Boots无罪。The display of goods on shelves, even with price marked, was an invitation to treat. The offer took place when the customer selected the goods form the shelves and took them to the pharmacist at the cash register. If the pharmacist a

46、ccepted money, a contract was found.· Phillips Products v Hyland (1987) if a duty-defining clause is in reality an exclusion clause, it can be struck out under UCTA as such P从某公司那里租了个机器，合同规定该公司要提供给原告一个开机器的司机H，合同也规定H的疏忽不算在公司身上。结果司机疏忽犯错了造成了原告的损失。法庭认为排除条款不合理，大概就是原告根本没办法自己开机器，只能接受。· Photo Prod

47、uctions v Securicor Ltd (1980) significant breach of contract does not necessarily defeat exclusion clausePhoto请S来patrol（巡逻）工厂，exclude了S的liability，结果S的一个employee故意放火烧了工厂。Court held 是不是fundamental breach已经不考虑了，要考虑的是whether or not it covered the liability in question，所以可以rely on这个exclusion clause。

48、3; Pinnel's case (1602) a willingness to pay part of a debt promptly does not itself represent a consideration, and cannot found a contract即“在给付到期日前所为之部分金钱给付，不得视为对全部债权清偿之给付”其所以如此，是因为没有约因的支持。所以支付全部债务是债务人应尽的义务，在没有新的约因或事项的情况下，自然是不能以部分之金钱给付而抵消全部债务的了。但如果此项债务的给付提前，或以其他物如马、牛等物品为替代或在其他地点为部分金钱给付时，则法律可以允许

49、以部分给付视为对全部债权的满足给付，因为此类物品之给付可能对债权人更有用途。这就是屏乃尔原则的内容。根据这个判例，在没有新的约因的情况下，一般是不能以部分的给付来代替全部的债务履行的。· Redgrave v Hurd (1881) a party's opportunity to discover truth does not absolve other party for misrepresentation一个律师将他的业务卖给了另一个律师，前者在成交之前对后者说，他每年的收入能达到300镑，并且把有关的记录放在后者面前。处于对前者的相信，后者并没有翻阅那些记录。后来，后

50、者发现前者作了虚假的表示，其每年的收入根本达不到前者说的数额，因为要求撤销交易。法庭判决，他有权这样做，即使他有机会发现前者的表示是不真实的，· Smith v Eric S Bush (1990) Valuer of house has a duty of care to purchaser; disclaimer must satisfy UCTA原告因为被告找的评估公司没有给出advise，使得房子受损。原被告之间没什么合同关系，但是被告是评估公司的人。原告和评估公司的合同中有一条规定是评估师免责。免责条款要符合UCTA。所以这里无效。· Saunders v Ang

51、lia Building Society (1971) non est factum does not excuse careless signing of contract一个老太太写了个文件说把房子卖给L先生，L靠着这份文件申请到了2000块钱。他没还上钱，现在要收老太太房子，L先生有个朋友是老太太侄子，老太太同意给帮助L，并且把自己的房子给侄子作为礼物，条件是让她终身免费居住。老太太签的那份文件，因为找不到眼睛就没读，这个文件是无效的因为 misrepresentation。· Scammel v Ouston (1941) courts need not enforece a

52、 vague contractS提供一个 van for ， 2年内£286， O抵押 for £100. S refused to supply the van.法庭认为这不是合同条款，没法强制执行，因为根本没说多久还多少什么的。· Stilk v Myrick (1809) agreement to comply with a contract is not normally consideration for a new contract一群水手和船长签约，从London去菠萝的海并返回，中途跑了两个水手。船长找不到替代的人就跟剩下的人说，只要你们把船安全驶

53、回London,我就把给那俩的钱给你们，水手们同意了，船回到London后，船长不兑现诺言，法庭判船长不必给钱。No extend contractual duty.· The Eurymedon (1975) courts can find ways to give effect to contracting parties intentions, despite technicalities that make it difficult合同内容是把机器运送到新西兰，机器持有人不能起诉装卸工，除非是一年内发生什么问题，装卸工的合同适合运输公司之间的，弄懂三者关系。结果装卸工把机器弄

54、坏了，机器持有人要装卸工赔偿，觉得他和装卸工之间的隐藏条款是，装卸工得小心机器的安全。彼时失效已经超过一年了。装卸工觉得他可以依赖limitation clause避免被起诉。反正装卸工赢了官司。· The Fibrosa (1943) contract frustrated by war; losses may be recoverable if total loss of consideration一个英国公司同意12th July 1939给波兰一公司提供一些machine, 4个月内交付完，一开始付£1,600最后付£3,200。 波兰公司paid

55、63;1000 on 18th July。 1st Sept德国入侵波兰，3rd Sept 英国对德宣战。23rd Sept这个订单变成非法的了，因为英国在敌人的领队对其贸易。法庭认为contract was frustrated如果时候违法，波兰公司可以拿回已付的钱，然后将来不用再付。· The Hongkong Fir (1961) some contractual terms can be innominate: neither conditions nor warranties被告向原告租用“香港杉木号”货轮,租期为24个月出租方声称这艘船已经处于适合普通货物运输的状态。结果

56、发现引擎室的船员并不能胜任他们的工作,并且在租船期的前7个月中这艘船航行了不到9个星期,原因是这艘船经常抛锚,所以要不断地修理来使她适航。因此被告拒绝履行租船合同,并且主张租船合同中的适航条款是一项condition,由于原告违反了这一条件,所以他们有权利解除合同这一条款neither conditions nor warranties,而被告是否有权利解除合同,则要看违反这一条款的后果是否在实质上剥夺了他在合同项下本应获得的利益。在本案中却并非如此,因为租船方仍有充分的时间进行运输。· The Moorcock (1889) contractual terms can be imp

57、lied if necessary to give business efficacy被告是泰晤士河上的一座码头的所有人，原告是汽船Moorcock号的所有人。双方协议轮船在被告的码头上装卸货物，由原告支付被告租用起重机和码头上其他设施的租金。但当轮船停泊在码头上时正赶上退潮，轮船因此搁浅，船底触到泥土中的石头遭到损坏。法庭认为，双方合同的基础必定是，低潮时河床是安全的，所以有必要在合同中插入这样一条必须条款。由于被告违反了这一默示条款，他必须承担违约责任。· Thompson v Borden Midland and Scottish Railway (1930) an exclu

58、sion clause cannot be defeated by ignorance, even if it is somewhat difficult to find原告下火车时受伤，铁路公司认为他们有告示，所以exclusion clause，车票也写了要注意。原告是个文盲，她不识字。法庭认为免责条款成立，只要reasonable steps 让reasonable person知道就可以，没有必要人所有人都知道，所以原告索赔不成功。· Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) exclusion clause must be notified t

59、o the affected party before contract formedShoe停车场门口的exclusion clause说停车risk自负，T停车刷卡付钱后车被撞。Clause是否有效的关键在于offer和accept. Court认为当machine is ready to receive the money的时候offer就生成了，然后customer put money into machine的行为是acceptance.· Re McArdle (1951) past benefit not consideration for a contractfather说等mother死后house留给children。一个child的wife给房子进行改建，worth 488英镑，一年后children承诺会给wife钱补偿，后未给。Court held 在consideration做出以前她就已经perform了，所以她provide no consideration for这些钱，所以the agreement is un