Lau Ngiik Log & Anor V Bank Perenian Malaysia Case Study
1651 Words7 Pages
Past consideration
“Executed consideration must be distinguished from past consideration which is a mere sentiment of gratitude or honour prompting a return for benefits received and is no consideration at all. In the case of executed consideration, both the promise and the act which constitutes the consideration are integral and co-related parts of the same transaction. In the case of past consideration, however, the promise is subsequent to the act and independent of it; they are not in substance part of the same transaction. Thus if A saves B from drowning and B later promises A a reward, A's action cannot be relied on as consideration for B's promise for it is past in point of time."
Past consideration arises in situations whereby consideration…show more content… The loan money was released by the defendants one day after the signing of the loan agreement which took place on October 27, 1978. However, the memorandum of charge was executed only on November 27, 1978. The plaintiffs contended that the monies were released without any security, and thus the consideration was past consideration.The Court of Appeal held that the issue could not be looked at in isolation only because the execution of the loan agreement, the release of the loan and the execution of the charge instrument took place on different…show more content… Thus, part payment of a sum due cannot be construed as a complete satisfaction of the debt even though both parties may have agreed to this, except where new or additional consideration is given. This is because the part payment is only what the promisor is obliged under the contract to do, and it cannot become consideration for an agreement to dispense with the balance of the debt.
In Pinnel's Case (1602) 77 ER 237, Pinnel brought an action against Cole for the recovery of a debt owed by Cole. In his defence, Cole pleaded that he had repaid Pinnei part of the sum and that Pinnel had accepted it in satisfaction for the whole debt.
The Court held the payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, but the gift of a horse, hawk or robe, etc. might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money in respect of some circumstance, or otherwise the plaintiff would not have accepted it in