Question 1

City University and City College are good football teams and they have matches very often.
The host spent 5000 pounds to request 10 police to maintain order. Fights between fans of
both teams always happened recently and the police said the host needs 20 polices. During
the match, fans of both teams fight again and so the sport director called the police office for
requesting more police. They replied that they will do if the host pays 7000 pounds. The
sports director agreed. Is City University bound to pay?

5000 must pay ⇒ special duty ⇒ contract

7000 ⇒ public duty (Collins v Godefroy)
4 steps
Whether the police is required to attend the private premise or public place; (private)
Whether violence has occurred or is imminent, if so no special duty; (yes, special)
The nature of the event : Election on one end (public duty), Wedding is on the other end
(private) and football match is in the middle; and (middle)
Whether protection can be provided without using police officers. (NO, can be security)

If 7000 must pay ⇒ public duty

If dun have to pay 7000
police originally 10 then suddenly require 10 more = 20

On City University’s side

The host requested 10 police to maintain order solely in the football court. Since it is a
contract between them, the host would have to pay 5000 pounds to the police (host’s
consideration) to get the service of the police (police’s consideration). (special duty)

However, when fights between fans of both teams happened,although the host requested for
more police due to insufficiency, the host does not need to pay. It is because when fighting
happened, the condition changed. Police is not longer taking special duty but public duty
which means that it is the police’s duty in law providing services beyond those of their
normal public duties of maintaining law and order. If the 10 police in the court initially cannot
handle the fighting they should just request for extra force from the police station and they
should not charge the host no matter the host requested for extra police or not.

Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan Country Council (special duty)

❖ owners has insisted on a greater level of manning than the local police deemed
necessary
❖ (70 polices were mobilized for prevent of criminal injury).
❖ The court ruled that it is a special duty

Harries v Sheffield United Football Club

1. Whether the police is required to attend the private premise or public place; (Half)
2. Whether violence has occurred or is imminent, if so no special duty; Yes (no special)
3. The nature of the event : Election on one end, Wedding is on the other end and
football match is in the middle; and (Half)
 4. Whether protection can be provided without using police officers. (can be security or
police)

- Violence occurs

Question 2
Frank is a senior technician on a ship which is sailing from Hong Kong to Europe. His
employment contract requires him to do all he can in all emergencies of the voyage. The
ship has a crew of 30 qualified technicians and the minimum number of technicians
required to operate the ship is 25. When the ship calls at a port in India, a seamen’s trade
union calls for a strike. Five technicians belonging to the union leave the ship. Under the
demand by Frank and other seamen, the ship owner agrees to pay an extra $50,000 to
every seaman who will continue to work and navigate the ship to the final destination. Is
Frank entitled to claim the money?

P.315
Yes

Hartley v Ponsonby
Two contracts in place, first contract to sail in normal condition and the second one is to sail
under extra hazardous situations. The remaining seamen risked their life to sail under
hazardous situations is a good consideration for the second contract.

Would your answer be different if:

(a) Frank’s employment contract said that he may choose to leave the ship whenever five
or more technicians desert the ship for whatever reason; (dunton v dunton)

He has the right to leave, but he gives up the right to leave ⇒ consideration
He may breach the first contract if there are more than 25 people on the ship

Dunton v Dunton (1892)

D divorced his wife (P) and promised to pay £6 p.a. so long as P conducted herself “in a
respectable orderly and virtuous manner.”
Held: P offered consideration for these promises to pay £6 p.a. William J held that “she was
under no legal obligation to the defendant, or to anyone, not to get drunk in her own or any
friend’s house. She was under no legal obligation to the defendant or to anyone, not to
consort with persons, male or female, of bad moral character. She was under no legal
obligation to the defendant, or to anyone, not to allow a lover to have sexual connection with
her.”

If no money ⇒ then ship case

Stilk v Myrick

A contract between the crew and the ship master : promised to do anything needed in all of
the emergencies of the voyage;
Two crewmen deserted, ship master promised to give the wage of the deserted to the
remaining crewmen;
No consideration since crewmen deserted was part of the emergencies of the voyage; and
Commentators observed that the court also decided on policy concerns :-
-the ship master may be blackmailed by the crews if enforced promise
-to prevent economic duress (the development the doctrine of economic duress).

(b) the five technicians are improperly discharged by the ship owner;

I deliberatly do it (intention)

Stilk v Myrick

A contract between the crew and the ship master : promised to do anything needed in all of
the emergencies of the voyage;
Two crewmen deserted, ship master promised to give the wage of the deserted to the
remaining crewmen;
No consideration since crewmen deserted was part of the emergencies of the voyage; and
Commentators observed that the court also decided on policy concerns :-
-the ship master may be blackmailed by the crews if enforced promise
-to prevent economic duress (the development the doctrine of economic duress).

(c) fifteen (instead of five) technicians have gone on the strike and left the ship;

Hartley v Ponsonby

(d) without any demand by any seaman, the ship owner offers the additional money
and Frank accepts it. (gift ⇒ no consideration) Williams v Roffery ⇒ if there is extra

Consideration was provided by the claimant conferring a benefit on the defendant by helping
them to avoid the penalty clause. Therefore the defendant was liable to make the extra
payments promised.

(Practical benefit)
If the ship is delivering goods, they may breach the contract if not enough sailors to protect
the goods ⇒ be sued by the customers.

Not estoppel
Question 3
Alice borrowed HK$5,000 from Paula two weeks ago. At that time, she agreed to repay the
whole money on 15 December at Paula’s office in Shatin. Now Paula agrees to accept the
following from Alice in satisfaction of the whole debt. Is the agreement binding?
(a) HK$3,000 to be repaid on 15 December at Paula’s flat in Kowloon Tong; (Paula may
be ay home that day in KLT) (Pinnel's case)

Or there is no advantage to Paula becaus of the following case:

Depends on whether the creditor has the advantage (derive from her)

Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd (1933)

P was indebted to Ds for £208 and P by agreement paid money owed into a bank in
Eastbourne rather than to the London offices of D’s solicitors in order to avoid
bankruptcy proceedings. Ds would not serve a bankruptcy notice on P in return. Ds
subsequently pleaded if an agreement was made, there was no consideration for
making it.

Held: Ds obtained no advantage in this arrangement and there was nothing moving
towards them which could be deemed to be a consideration

(b) HK$3,000 to be repaid on 20 December at Paula’s office; (no benefit to Paula) (no)
(Objective test)

Foakes v Beer (1884)

In this case, Mrs. Beer obtained a judgment against Dr. Foakes in the sum of £2090 19s.
After some time, Dr. Foakes approached Mrs. Beer and asked for time to pay the debt. They
signed an agreement that if Dr. Foakes paid £500 immediately and the balance by specified
instalments, Mrs. Beer would not take any proceedings against Dr. Foakes on the judgment.
After Dr. Foakes had paid all the debt, Mrs. Beer claimed £360 as interest on the debt.

Held: Mrs. Beer was entitled to the interest claimed because Dr. Foakes did not give any
consideration for exemption from payment of interest (i.e. £360) The House of Lord had
confirmed the Pinnel’s rule.

Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd (1933)

P was indebted to Ds for £208 and P by agreement paid money owed into a bank in
Eastbourne rather than to the London offices of D’s solicitors in order to avoid bankruptcy
proceedings. Ds would not serve a bankruptcy notice on P in return. Ds subsequently
pleaded if an agreement was made, there was no consideration for making it.

Held: Ds obtained no advantage in this arrangement and there was nothing moving towards
them which could be deemed to be a consideration
(c) US$500 at the agreed time and place; (Paula may need US dollar which Alice helps to
exchange the money for her (Pinnel’s Case)

Foakes v Beer (1884)

In this case, Mrs. Beer obtained a judgment against Dr. Foakes in the sum of £2090 19s.
After some time, Dr. Foakes approached Mrs. Beer and asked for time to pay the debt. They
signed an agreement that if Dr. Foakes paid £500 immediately and the balance by specified
instalments, Mrs. Beer would not take any proceedings against Dr. Foakes on the judgment.
After Dr. Foakes had paid all the debt, Mrs. Beer claimed £360 as interest on the debt.

Held: Mrs. Beer was entitled to the interest claimed because Dr. Foakes did not give any
consideration for exemption from payment of interest (i.e. £360) The House of Lord had
confirmed the Pinnel’s rule.

(d) A law book worth about HK$500;

➢ Yes, because law book can be new consideration ⇒ Paula may like (Pinnel’s Case)

Foakes v Beer (1884)

In this case, Mrs. Beer obtained a judgment against Dr. Foakes in the sum of £2090 19s.
After some time, Dr. Foakes approached Mrs. Beer and asked for time to pay the debt. They
signed an agreement that if Dr. Foakes paid £500 immediately and the balance by specified
instalments, Mrs. Beer would not take any proceedings against Dr. Foakes on the judgment.
After Dr. Foakes had paid all the debt, Mrs. Beer claimed £360 as interest on the debt.

Held: Mrs. Beer was entitled to the interest claimed because Dr. Foakes did not give any
consideration for exemption from payment of interest (i.e. £360) The House of Lord had
confirmed the Pinnel’s rule.

Chappell & Co Ltd. v Nestle Co Ltd. (1960)

Nestle assigned a value into the wrappers because those wrappers represent the record of
chocolate, and Chappell supplied those record at the request of Nestle, which is benefit
(which is the real deal as stated by Lord Reid).

Foakes v Beer (1884)

In this case, Mrs. Beer obtained a judgment against Dr. Foakes in the sum of £2090 19s.
After some time, Dr. Foakes approached Mrs. Beer and asked for time to pay the debt. They
signed an agreement that if Dr. Foakes paid £500 immediately and the balance by specified
instalments, Mrs. Beer would not take any proceedings against Dr. Foakes on the judgment.
After Dr. Foakes had paid all the debt, Mrs. Beer claimed £360 as interest on the debt.
 ➢ Whether it is favour to Paula, if yes, ⇒consideration
➢ since she agrees ⇒ favour ⇒ consideration

(e) HK$3,000 repaid by Sam, Alice’s brother, at the agreed time and place.
Handle by third party (Hirachand Punamchand v Temple)

Father makes an agreement ⇒new consideration

Question 4
John runs a bookshop in a shopping centre owned by Peter’s company. The lease agreement
between John and Peter requires John to pay a monthly rent of $300,000. It also provides
that the landlord may terminate the lease immediately if John fails to pay the full rent
within
15 days of the due date. With the closure of several schools in the nearby area, the business
of John’s bookshop declined significantly. After some negotiation, Peter expressed
sympathy
towards John’s difficult position and agreed that as from March 1997, the rent would be
reduced to $200,000. The parties understood that a new college would soon move into the
area and the business of the bookshop would get better by then.
In October 1997, Jenny took over Peter’s company. After reviewing the lease with John,
Jenny demanded that John should pay the full rent as from October and should pay for the
difference between the full rent and the reduced rent for the period between March and
October 1997. Otherwise, Jenny would terminate the lease. The new college is expected to
move into the area in December.
Advise John.

March 1997----------------------------------------Oct 1997-----------------------------------------Dec 1997

-----------------------------------------difficult time------------------------------------------------------------->
(request to pay full by peter) New college
( Estoppel )( Pay full and the price difference )

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Houses Ltd

A promise is estopped when it intended to be binding, intended to acted on, and in fact acted
on. In any event the estoppel would cease when the conditions to which the representation
applied came to an end, or it also might be said that it would only come to an end on notice.

Once the promisor give a notice,

The situation will not change until Dec