definition from case
Currie v Misa- something must be exchanged from both parties as it’s a contract not a gift.
consideration must move from the promisee also (not just the promiser)
Tweddle v Atkinson
consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate.
Thomas v Thomas
Chappell v Nestle
emotional promises are not sufficient. must be tangible and identifiable. conflicting cases in what’s considered “sufficient”
White v Bluett- son had no legal right to complain and natural love and affection was not consideration.
Ward v Bytham- father eventually stopped making the payments as there was no legal obligation to keep the child happy. court considered this to be consideration.
exception to past consideration
there may still be sufficient consideration if there was an implied promise to pay at the time the other party carried out their part.
Lampleigh v Braithwait
Performing an existing duty under a previous contract is also not sufficient consideration in a new contract.
Stilk v Myrick
exception to existing duty 1.
performing an existing duty will be sufficient consideration if something extra is done in return for the new payment (an extra benefit)
Hartley v Ponsonby
exception to existing duty 2.
nothing extra was done, but the other party gained a factual benefit from the performance of the existing duty
Williams v Roffey
exception to existing duty 3.
existing duty was owed to a third party. A promises B that he will do something for C.
Shadwell v Shadwell
all rules on consideration.
consideration must move from the promisee
consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate
emotional promises aren’t sufficient
past consideration isn’t sufficient (exception)
performing an existing duty under a previous contract isn’t consideration (exception 3)
consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate what does this mean?
must be real and have economic value, even if candy wrappers- Chappell v Nestle
Thomas v Thomas
agreed wife can pay £1 rent each year. later tried to evict the widow but couldn’t because the £1 still had economic value and was therefore still sufficient consideration
White v Bluett
agreed to stop complaining an show his father love and affection if not of economic value and so cannot be consideration
Re McArdle
the work was done before the agreement to be paid, so wouldn’t count as good consideration
lampleigh v braithwait
considering how important it was that D got the pardon it was implied that D would be willing to pay.
Tweddle v Atkinson
son couldn’t sue as he had not given consideration so had no right to enforce the contract
performance of an existing legal or contractual duty is not good consideration
if one party has a duty to do something, merely performing that duty is not good consideration for a new promise to the other party
a) existing legal/public duty
b) existing. contractual duty
Stilk v Myrick
After some of the ships crew had abandoned during the voyage, the master offered to split their wages amongst the remaining crew. not held. Stilk was only doing what he was agreed to do, just slightly more of it, which is what he would have been expected to do in case of emergency anyway.
hartley v ponsonby
17/36 crew members deserted. a promise was made to the remaining 19 that they would be paid more for picking up the extra work.
this added a lot of extra work and added extra danger to the job which is something new to the agreement so sailing in more dangerous conditions was consideration for more pay.
Williams v Roffey
it was decided the practical benefit of not having find new workers would be enough for consideration
law and evaluation of sufficiency of consideration
A01- consideration must be sufficient; need not to be adequate (Thomas v Thomas; Chappell v Nestle)
A03- supports the idea of freedom of contract as it’s not the role of a judge to interfere with what the parties agreed.
Counter- can lead to ridiculous rulings where something is of no real worth to the parties, such as sweet wrappers that can be thrown away, and £1 rent in Thomas v Thomas which was way below market value. this could raise doubts about whether the sufficiency rule is genuinely principled or simply a practical tool for enforceability.
law and evaluation on emotional promises
Judge’s decisions show inconsistency on this issue and may show their preferred outcomes rather to any genuine difference in legal principles.
A01- White v Bluett, a sons promise to stop complaining was held to have no value so no contract existed, whereas in Ward v Bytham a mothers promise to love the child and keep her happy was deemed sufficient.
A03- such conflicting outcomes lead to confusion and uncertainty, making it difficult for lawyers to advise their clients. Ward suggests that judicial decisions are subjective and a determined judge will always find something of value if they wish to enforce a contract. values are distinguished on the basis of value, but the difference is not convincing.
law and evaluation on past consideration
A01-common law says that past consideration has no value. in re mcardle, the work being done before the defendants promised payment was insufficient. This could be unfair to some claimants so an exception of past consideration was made, where past consideration may be sufficient if there was an implied promise of payment all along- Lampleigh v Braithwait.
A03-rule may be seen as fair as it prevents floodgates as too many claimants would be filing for dubious cases, where they could claim they were promised rewards after doing something voluntarily. the law is concerned with bargains and no gifts and in the eyes of the law work done in the past is like a gift.
exception may be fair as D may have not gotten the royal pardoning if an implied promise of payment existed all along. however, the rules surrounding this is not flexible enough for a judge to find and understanding to pay for a task performed in the past, making it unclear.
law and evaluation on existing contractual duty
A01- common law says the performance of an existing contractual duty is not sufficient consideration for a new promise from the other party- Stilk v Myrick.
however, exception of extra work done given in exchange for the new promise is sufficient- Hartley v Ponsonby
Another exception is where nothing extra is done, but the performance of the existing contractual duty provides a factual benefit for the other party- Williams v Roffey.
Another exception is where it may be sufficient if the performance of the contractual duty is owed to a third party and they promise payment- Shadwell v Shadwell
A03- rule appears fair because one party is giving nothing new in return for the promise of extra payment. it also prevents one party putting unfair pressure on the other party to extract extra payment for the same work as may have happened.
However, it may be difficult to tell the real difference between a Stilk- type situation and a Hartley v Ponsonby situation. unclear to count as something as significantly extra. also, modern case law seems to be moving away from this rule and accepting the commercial reality of a situation.
