CONSIDERATION
Agreement will not be legal and enforceable if it is not supported by consideration. In
Dunlop v Selfridge it was held that the claimant must prove that he bought the
defendant’s promise by doing/giving or promising something in return for it.
And as per Currie v Misa, Lush LJ held that consideration gives a party a benefit
while it deprives the other party of it.
Consideration need not benefit the promisor. Tanner v Tanner
Jones v Padavatton- daughter giving up her job was considered for her mother to
provide an allowance even though the consideration did not directly benefit the
mother.
Past consideration is not good consideration.
When one party completes his performance before the other party offers
consideration, it is held that the earlier performance is not done in return for the other
party’s consideration.
Roscorla v Thomas- d promised after the sale of the horse, no consideration.
Re McArdle- the words stated that the payment of the performance was to be done in
the future but facts suggested that promise was given to something that was already
done. Thus, no consideration.
Exceptions:
Act must have been performed at the promisor’s request. Lampleigh v Brathwaite
Must have been reasonably contemplated by both the parties that payment should be
made Re Casey Patents
Promise must be legally enforceable. Pao On v Lau Yiu
Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate.
Thomas v Thomas- widow’s promise to pay £1 was enough consideration.
Chappell v Nestle- wrappers amounted to good consideration even though it wasn't a
benefit to the defendants.
Consideration must be of economic value
But Chappell v Nestle- economic value is negligible. (must have ‘some economic
value’ than ‘just emotional value’.
White v Bluett- son’s promise not to complain wasn't good consideration as it was too
vague.
Thomas v Thomas- husband’s last wishes held no economic value.
A promise not to sue can be consideration
Alliance Bank v Broom- courts held that the bank’s consideration was an implied
promise not to sue the D which in turn provided the D with security.
Combe v Combe- courts held no consideration as the husband never asked of her to
not to apply for a maintenance order which meant that his promise was not made in
return for her promise not to do so.
Performance of an existing contractual duty-
Agreement will not be legal and enforceable if it is not supported by consideration. In
Dunlop v Selfridge it was held that the claimant must prove that he bought the
defendant’s promise by doing/giving or promising something in return for it.
And as per Currie v Misa, Lush LJ held that consideration gives a party a benefit
while it deprives the other party of it.
Consideration need not benefit the promisor. Tanner v Tanner
Jones v Padavatton- daughter giving up her job was considered for her mother to
provide an allowance even though the consideration did not directly benefit the
mother.
Past consideration is not good consideration.
When one party completes his performance before the other party offers
consideration, it is held that the earlier performance is not done in return for the other
party’s consideration.
Roscorla v Thomas- d promised after the sale of the horse, no consideration.
Re McArdle- the words stated that the payment of the performance was to be done in
the future but facts suggested that promise was given to something that was already
done. Thus, no consideration.
Exceptions:
Act must have been performed at the promisor’s request. Lampleigh v Brathwaite
Must have been reasonably contemplated by both the parties that payment should be
made Re Casey Patents
Promise must be legally enforceable. Pao On v Lau Yiu
Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate.
Thomas v Thomas- widow’s promise to pay £1 was enough consideration.
Chappell v Nestle- wrappers amounted to good consideration even though it wasn't a
benefit to the defendants.
Consideration must be of economic value
But Chappell v Nestle- economic value is negligible. (must have ‘some economic
value’ than ‘just emotional value’.
White v Bluett- son’s promise not to complain wasn't good consideration as it was too
vague.
Thomas v Thomas- husband’s last wishes held no economic value.
A promise not to sue can be consideration
Alliance Bank v Broom- courts held that the bank’s consideration was an implied
promise not to sue the D which in turn provided the D with security.
Combe v Combe- courts held no consideration as the husband never asked of her to
not to apply for a maintenance order which meant that his promise was not made in
return for her promise not to do so.
Performance of an existing contractual duty-
