Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
1980 · AC 614
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A promise was given after an act done at the other side's request, in a commercial setting where both sides always expected it to be paid for. There was also a threat not to complete unless a guarantee was given.
- Issue
- Was the past act good , and was the guarantee voidable for duress?
- Held
- The past act was good consideration because it was requested, payment was contemplated, and the later promise only fixed it. The duress claim failed because the pressure was commercial and there was no coercion of the will.
- Principle
- Requested can support a later promise. Commercial pressure is not duress unless it vitiates consent.
- Why it matters
- It is used both for consideration and for the limits of .
Words and Latin in this note
- Past consideration
- Something already done, before the promise and not at the promisor's request. It cannot buy a later promise, unless the act was requested and payment was always expected. Open the note.
- Economic duress
- Illegitimate commercial pressure that leaves no practical choice. A promise extracted by it may be voidable. Ordinary hard bargaining is not enough. Open the note.
- Consideration
- The price of a promise: something of value given, or promised, in return. A bare promise to make a gift has none. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.