Shadwell v Shadwell
Shadwell was engaged to marry a woman.
His uncle, Charles Shadwell, wrote him a letter saying:
“I am glad to hear of your engagement… I promise to pay you £150 a year after your marriage.”
E. Shadwell married Nicholl and later tried to claim the money from his uncle
The uncle refused to pay, saying there was no consideration.
Even though the nephew was already engaged, his marriage benefited the uncle (who clearly wanted it to happen) and was a condition of receiving the money.
So, the marriage acted as valid consideration.
Wyatt v Kreglinger and Fernau
W was not entitled to a pension. K&F offered him a £200/year pension if he didn’t work in the wool trade. The pension was later discontinued.
Has W provided consideration for the promise of an annual pension?
Court: No. The contract was illegal. Even if it wasn’t illegal, W’s stipulation was merely a condition and not a detriment/consideration (Scrutton LJ).
bainbridge v firmstone
F promised to return 2 boilers in as perfect
condition after having weighted them. F returned the boilers after an unreasonable time, and in pieces, forcing B to spend time and money to reassemble them.
Has F breached a contract with B?
Court: Yes. The consideration is that the plaintiff, at the defendant’s request, had consented to allow the defendant to weigh the boilers.
Chappell & Co. Ltd v Nestlé & Co. Ltd
N sold records to the public for 1s 6d and 3
wrappers. C sued N for copyright infringement, as they sold discs with one of their music records without paying royalties.
Are chocolate wrappers part of the retail price?
Court: Yes. As royalties can only be paid if the selling price is “money only”, N was in breach of the law and should be refrained from selling the records.
Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd
PHH wanted to prevent an injunction from P to
disrupt a sale to a TP. PHH agreed on a lock-out agmt: 2 weeks to conclude a contract. During the 2-week period, PHH sold to a TP.
Was consideration provided for the lock-out
agmt?
Court: Yes. Forbearance of a legal right to sue and avoiding the nuisance of a threatened injunction is a form of consideration as it has economic value.
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
During a strike, a colliery manager asked the
police to protect their premises. The police asked for extra payments for providing police officers at the colliery. GB refused to pay.
Was the council entitled to the payment? Was
consideration provided for the job?
Court: Yes. If police provided the “standard” protection, they would not be entitled to extra payment. Here, they went beyond their legal obligation to protect the safety of the population.
Ward v Byham
The father of an illegitimate child promised to pay a week allowance to the mother if she kept the child and looked after her. The father stopped paying when she remarried.
Was the mother entitled to the week allowance?
Court: Yes, as there was good consideration for the father’s promise.
Stilk v Myrick
Two sailors deserted during a voyage. The captain promised the remaining crew extra pay to complete the journey short-handed.
Court: the promise was not enforceable because the sailors were already contractually obliged to do everything they could to complete the voyage. There was no new consideration for the extra pay.
Hartley v Ponsonby
17 out of 36 crew members deserted. The captain promised extra pay to the remaining sailors if they continued the voyage.
The court held that the promise was enforceable. Unlike in Stilk v Myrick, the situation had changed so much that continuing the voyage was more dangerous and went beyond their original duties. That meant the sailors gave new consideration, making the promise legally binding.
Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd
Williams was hired to renovate flats for Roffey Bros. When Williams ran into financial trouble, Roffey Bros promised to pay extra to ensure the work was finished on time and to avoid late penalties in their main contract.
The court held that this promise was enforceable. Even though Williams was doing what he had originally agreed to, Roffey Bros received a practical benefit (avoiding delay and extra costs). That benefit counted as valid consideration, making the promise legally binding.
Eastwood v Kenyon
Eastwood spent money to raise and educate Sarah . When she became an adult, she promised to repay him. But after she married, her husband refused to pay.
Court: the promise was not legally binding. A moral obligation alone isn’t enough. Past actions (like raising and educating her) don’t count as valid consideration unless they were originally part of a legal agreement.
Lampleigh v Brathwait
B killed someone and asked L to help him get a royal pardon. Ldid the work and succeeded. Afterwards, B promised to pay him £100 but didn’t follow through.
Court: the promise was binding. Even though the promise to pay came after the work, the request and the service were connected there was an implied understanding from the start that L would be rewarded. So this was an example of past consideration being valid because it was requested.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Pao On agreed to sell shares in a company that owned a building to Lau Yiu Long and to stay on as minority shareholders. After the deal, both sides agreed on an indemnity to protect Pao On from losses if the market dropped.
Court: the indemnity agreement was binding, even though it came after the sale. That’s because the indemnity was understood to be part of the deal from the start, so it counted as valid consideration. This was an example where a later promise was still valid because the parties had already agreed, at the time of the original request, that something would be given in return.
past consideration
Something done before a promise is made. It is not valid for binding parties. You can’t usually do something first and then expect a promise of payment later to be enforceable.
The Pinnel’s Case
Cole owed Pinnel money. He paid £5 (less than the full amount) a month early, and Pinnel accepted it. But later, Pinnel sued for the rest of the debt.
Court: just paying less money isn’t enough, there must be some added value for the promise to accept less to be binding.
Foakes v Beer
Foakes owed Beer money from a court judgment. Beer agreed not to take legal action if Foakes paid in instalments. Foakes paid the full amount, but didn’t pay interest. Later, Beer asked for the interest.
The court decided that Beer could still claim the interest, because Foakes hadn’t offered anything extra in return for Beer’s promise. Just paying the debt in instalments wasn’t enough — he was already legally required to pay. So, there was no valid consideration for waiving the interest.
