consideration

A U.S. company (“PepsiCo”) entered into an “exclusive bottling appointment” (“EBA”) with an independent Australian bottling company (“SAPL”). PepsiCo agreed in the EBA to sell, or cause a related entity to sell, beverage concentrate to SAPL for bottling and sale, and granted SAPL the right to use the Pepsi and Mountain Dew trademarks in this regard.

The appellant estate donated shares of a private company (Edmette), which were non-qualifying securities, to a private foundation with which it did not deal at arm’s length.

The taxpayer received organic sludge from suppliers in the agri-food industry, and was paid by them for taking over the sludge, which it then treated and transformed, using electricity, into residual fertilizer materials ("RFM"). It then paid companies (the "Receivers") to acquire the RFM, which they recovered for composting, agricultural land application or as an energy source. It profited by paying significantly less to the Receivers than it received from its sludge suppliers.

The case focused on this hypothetical example. A customer pays for parking in a car park of the appellant (NCP) by going to the ticket machine which, on its tariff board, displays a price for one hour of £1.40 – but also states that change is not given but overpayments are accepted. She deposits £1.50 in coins into the machine, which flashes up 'press green button for ticket', which she does.

MEO, a Portuguese telecommunications company providing telecommunications, internet access, television and multimedia services for monthly subscription fees was entitled under its customer contracts upon deactivation of service to compensation corresponding to the amount of the agreed monthly subscription fee multiplied by the difference between the duration of the minimum commitment period provided for in the contract and the number of months during which the service was provided.

The taxpayer sold its gold production to bullion dealers at the spot price but also, in order to manage the risk associated with fluctuations in the spot price of gold, entered into cash-settled derivatives such as forward contracts, spot deferred contracts, fixed interest floating lease rate contracts, put options and call options.

The taxpayers agreed with a corporation controlled by them to transfer an apartment building to the corporation in consideration for the issuance of preference shares. However, at the time of the agreement, the authorized capital of the corporation did not include preference shares, and this deficiency was not rectified until well after the taxation year of the taxpayers in question.

The taxpayer, a family trust, made a non-arm's-length sale of shares to a numbered corporation for a promissory note of approximately $2.6 million. The numbered corporation then immediately sold the shares at arm's length to a third party ("Keolis") for approximately $2.8 million. The lower sale price on the first transfer reflected that it had been determined that 404 would bear the cost of professional fees, relating to the structuring of the sale to Keolis, of $233,786.

A related corporation issued a non-interest bearing promissory note for $120,000 to the taxpayer on May 18, 1984. Given that advances in excess of $120,000 had actually been made by the taxpayer to the other corporation in varying amounts both before and after the agreement of May 18, 1984, the requirement that "consideration" for $120,000 be issued or granted was met.