Summary
Definition
- Currie v Misa: ‘A valuable consideration may consist either in some
right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some
forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or
undertaken by the other.’ - Dunlop v Selfridge: ‘An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise
thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought.’
Sufficiency and adequacy
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate – Thomas v
Thomas (£1 per year ground rent), Chapple v NestlÎ_ (chocolate wrappers),
Bainbridge v Firmstone (weighing boilers).
Other ‘rules’ of consideration
- Consideration must not be vague – White v Bluett.
- Consideration must move from the promisee – Tweddle v Atkinson.
- Consideration must not be past – Roscorla v Thomas, Re McArdle, but
may be valid if it is expected that payment would be made – Lampleigh
v Braithwait, Re Casey’s Patents. - Forbearance to sue may amount to consideration – Haigh v Brooks.
- Consideration must not be illegal – Foster v Driscoll.
Performance of an existing duty
A duty owed under the general law
- An existing duty is not generally valid consideration – Collins v Godefroy.
- Doing more than the existing duty may be valid consideration –
Glasbrook v Glamorgan. - Very little ‘extra’ is needed – Ward v Byham.
A duty owed under a contract
- Where an existing duty is owed under a contract, performing the task
which is already the subject of a contract cannot normally form
consideration – Stilk v Myrick. - Adding something extra, with the agreement of the other party, may
amount to valid consideration – Hartley v Ponsonby. - Sometimes, however, the court may modify the rules to reflect practice
in a modern society – Williams v Roffey.
64 Contract law