Consideration cases
‘some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other’ (Currie v Misa)
Consideration must have some economic value (White v Bluett) (Chappell and Co Ltd v
Nestle Co Ltd)
Must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas)
Past consideration in not good consideration (Re McArdle) (Roscorla v Thomas)
Past consideration isn’t valid unless requested (Lampleigh v Braithwaite)
Both parties must have understood that payment was to follow performance of requested act
(Re Casey’s parents)
Has act been done at promisor’s request? Would both parties have understood that the act was
to be remunerated? Would payment have been enforceable if promised in advance? (Pao v
Lau Yiu Long)
Consideration must move from the promisee (Tweddle v Atkinson)
An existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration (Collins v Godfrey)
(Glasbrook v Glamorgan) (Ward v Byham)
An existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration (Stilk v Myrick)
contrasting cases (Hartley v Ponsonby)
Exceeding an existing contractual duty (Hartley v Ponsonby)
Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forego the balance (Foakes
v Beer) (Re Pinnel’s case)
Performance of an existing contractual duty may be sufficient consideration if the promisor
receives a practical benefit or avoids a disbenefit (Williams v Roffey)
Performance of an existing duty owed by a third party (Shadwell v Shadwell) (Scotson v
Pegg) (New Zealand shipping co v Satterthwaite (the Eurymedon))
Part payment of a debt. (Pinnel) (approved by Foakes v Beer)
Significant change in how courts look at consideration of goods and services. ‘Practical
benefit’ extended to part payment of a debt? (Williams)
Part payment constituted a ‘practical benefit’ (Re Selectmove)
‘some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other’ (Currie v Misa)
Consideration must have some economic value (White v Bluett) (Chappell and Co Ltd v
Nestle Co Ltd)
Must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas)
Past consideration in not good consideration (Re McArdle) (Roscorla v Thomas)
Past consideration isn’t valid unless requested (Lampleigh v Braithwaite)
Both parties must have understood that payment was to follow performance of requested act
(Re Casey’s parents)
Has act been done at promisor’s request? Would both parties have understood that the act was
to be remunerated? Would payment have been enforceable if promised in advance? (Pao v
Lau Yiu Long)
Consideration must move from the promisee (Tweddle v Atkinson)
An existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration (Collins v Godfrey)
(Glasbrook v Glamorgan) (Ward v Byham)
An existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration (Stilk v Myrick)
contrasting cases (Hartley v Ponsonby)
Exceeding an existing contractual duty (Hartley v Ponsonby)
Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forego the balance (Foakes
v Beer) (Re Pinnel’s case)
Performance of an existing contractual duty may be sufficient consideration if the promisor
receives a practical benefit or avoids a disbenefit (Williams v Roffey)
Performance of an existing duty owed by a third party (Shadwell v Shadwell) (Scotson v
Pegg) (New Zealand shipping co v Satterthwaite (the Eurymedon))
Part payment of a debt. (Pinnel) (approved by Foakes v Beer)
Significant change in how courts look at consideration of goods and services. ‘Practical
benefit’ extended to part payment of a debt? (Williams)
Part payment constituted a ‘practical benefit’ (Re Selectmove)
