Consideration A03

Question 1

consideration need not be adequate

Answer 1

this is a pragmatic (practical) response to the question of how consideration should be enforced - some may consider the chocolate wrappers with no real world value in Chappell v Nestle being considered sufficient to be ridiculous however the courts role should not be to intervene and add value just because of a bad decision - this allows commerce to operate without constant legal interference - there is also the question of whether this has been undermined by williams v Roffery where extra money was offered to meet a deadline but no real consideration was given

Question 2

uncertainty

Answer 2

clear differences in Stilk v Myrick and Hartley v Ponsonby cause grey areas - what if 7 had deserted for example - where does the judge draw the line - makes the law subjective and up to the discretion of judges

Question 3

past consideration is no consideration

Answer 3

the current ruling is that it is required that the reward be contemplated by the parties before the act is complete - this however can be subjective and dependant on judges - this means there is a lack of clarity - however this is justified by the fact it closes the floodgates to dubious cases

Question 4

Reforms

Answer 4

1) ensure every contract has fair value - meaning consideration must be sufficient and adequate - unless the state controlled all business this would be impractical and too great an interference in the market and freedom of contract - this could lead to situations where companies could be sued for selling goods at a higher price - this is not the purpose of the law
2) the rule of past consideration is no consideration should be abolished - however although unfair outcomes may be present this rule creates certainty with regards to evidence in the courts