What case defines consideration
Currie v misa
What did Currie v misa define consideration as
Something of value such as a benefit to one party and or a loss to another this means each party must give something for an agreement to be legally binding
Consideration may not be adequate but sufficient cases and explanation
The car don’t care that it is a good or a bad bargain just that there has been one
Thomas v Thomas £1 rent was valid consideration
Chapel v Nestlé it is up to the party so agreed that the value of things being exchanged is acceptable
Consideration must be sufficient cases and explanation
The consideration must be in a farm which the courts have accepted as sufficient. This means it must have real value something tangible or recognised as having value.
Thomas V Thomas consideration was sufficient
White V bluett consideration was not sufficient as it had no real value a promise to start complaining has no value
Past consideration is not consideration case and explanation
And ask from the past is not valid consideration as seen in re mcardle
3 exception to past consideration with cases
1) the act was done at the promises request ( lampleigh v braithwate )
2) there is an implied promise to pay in business agreements (re Casey)
3) the promise would have been valid if made earlier (pa on )
Consideration must move from the promise explanation and case
If someone wants to sue someone on a contract you must have given something for example money are done something in return for what was promised you can’t enforce a promise if you gave no consideration
Tweddle V Atkinson
Pre-existing duties explanation and cases
You are already legally required to do is not consider consideration
As seen in stilck v myrick
Collins v goderfroy
Exceptions to pre-existing duties and cases 
Where a claim goals beyond what they are legally required to do this can be seen as new consideration
Hartley V ponsoby - the workers did double what they were expected
Glassbrook Bros -police did extra to protect
Ward V Byham- the mum did more by keeping the child happy and not just protected
