Contract LAW1221 Lecture 6 13/10/2026
The Classic Definition
“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or
benefit accruing to the one party [ie to the person making the promise], or some forbearance,
detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other [ie to the person seeking
to enforce the promise]”. - Currie v Misa (Lush J)
the benefit has to go to the party making the promise, to highlight exchange. However this doesn’t
emphasis the connection between benefit/detriment and promise.
Does this include merely promising to confer a benefit / incur a detriment?
Potential Problems around consideration
Was the something given in exchange - the benefit/detriment - valuable enough to count?
Was it given by the right person?
Was there a close enough connection between the benefit/detriment and the promise sought to be
enforced? Was there really a bargain?
Is it a problem that the person claiming to have provided consideration was already legally obligated
to do the act in question?
Value? Consideration need not be adequate.
Consideration does not need to be “adequate” - not even approximately equivalent in value.
“Nominal consideration” : £1 or “peppercorn” Chappell v Nestle (1959), sweet wrappers case
Nominal consideration is valid due to freedom of contract, it is for the parties to strike bargains.
Consideration also serves as a token of enforceability.
Value? Sentiment / good feelings
Held not to be good consideration. A mother’s “natural affection” for her son: Bret v JS. A son’s
promise not to complain to father: White v Bluett. A buyer securing “amiable relations” with a
shipbuilder by agreeing to a price hike - “The Atlantic Baron”
But held to be good consideration were: A mother’s promise to the child’s father that the child would
be “well looked after and happy” : Ward v Byham. An Undertaking to abstain from drinking, smoking,
gambling and bad language - Hamer v Sidway (US Case)
Right person? “privity of contract”
The privity rule. At common law, a person could not sue on a contract to which they are not party and
for which have not provided consideration. Eg. Dunlop v Selfridge
Dunlop (C) made contract A with Dealer who made Contract B with Retailer (D)
D’s promise to dealer not to sell C’s tires at a discount was not enforceable by c.
This rule was subject to complicated common-law exceptions.
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s 1 now allows a non-party to enforce a term if the
contract “expressly provides that he may” or it “purports to confer a benefit on him” (unless the
contract suggests otherwise)
1
The Classic Definition
“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or
benefit accruing to the one party [ie to the person making the promise], or some forbearance,
detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other [ie to the person seeking
to enforce the promise]”. - Currie v Misa (Lush J)
the benefit has to go to the party making the promise, to highlight exchange. However this doesn’t
emphasis the connection between benefit/detriment and promise.
Does this include merely promising to confer a benefit / incur a detriment?
Potential Problems around consideration
Was the something given in exchange - the benefit/detriment - valuable enough to count?
Was it given by the right person?
Was there a close enough connection between the benefit/detriment and the promise sought to be
enforced? Was there really a bargain?
Is it a problem that the person claiming to have provided consideration was already legally obligated
to do the act in question?
Value? Consideration need not be adequate.
Consideration does not need to be “adequate” - not even approximately equivalent in value.
“Nominal consideration” : £1 or “peppercorn” Chappell v Nestle (1959), sweet wrappers case
Nominal consideration is valid due to freedom of contract, it is for the parties to strike bargains.
Consideration also serves as a token of enforceability.
Value? Sentiment / good feelings
Held not to be good consideration. A mother’s “natural affection” for her son: Bret v JS. A son’s
promise not to complain to father: White v Bluett. A buyer securing “amiable relations” with a
shipbuilder by agreeing to a price hike - “The Atlantic Baron”
But held to be good consideration were: A mother’s promise to the child’s father that the child would
be “well looked after and happy” : Ward v Byham. An Undertaking to abstain from drinking, smoking,
gambling and bad language - Hamer v Sidway (US Case)
Right person? “privity of contract”
The privity rule. At common law, a person could not sue on a contract to which they are not party and
for which have not provided consideration. Eg. Dunlop v Selfridge
Dunlop (C) made contract A with Dealer who made Contract B with Retailer (D)
D’s promise to dealer not to sell C’s tires at a discount was not enforceable by c.
This rule was subject to complicated common-law exceptions.
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s 1 now allows a non-party to enforce a term if the
contract “expressly provides that he may” or it “purports to confer a benefit on him” (unless the
contract suggests otherwise)
1
