The rules of consideration:
Chappell v Nestle Co
consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Thomas v Thomas
the promisee must promise to do something in return for the promise of the other party.
Jones v Padvatton
Even if you are giving up something of value, this can count as good consideration
White v Bluett
love and affection is not good consideration
Ward v Byham
UNLIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED
Lord Denning case where love and affection was good consideration
Re Mcardle
Consideration must not be given in the past
Exception to the past consideration rule: Implied promises
Where someone implies payment will be made before the other party acts but does not formally agree to this until after they have acted
Two ways to prove an implied promise:
-Importance of the performance of the contract
-Commercial settings
Lampleigh v Braithwait
Importance of the performance of the contract
Re Casey’s Patents
Commercial settings
Collins v Godefroy
Existing legal/public duty: where a person is only doing something they have to do under the law, this is not good consideration
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
Where someone goes beyond their pre-existing legal/public duty, this is good consideration
Stilk v Myrick
Pre existing contractual duties are not good consideration
Hartley v Ponsonby
Going beyond your pre-existing contractual duty is good consideration
Williams v Roffey Brown
If there is a practical benefit to you performing the contract to D, this is good consideration
Scotson v Pegg
Existing contractual duties with a third party can be good consideration for further agreements
Tweddle v Atkinson
Only parties to a contract can enforce its terms