Chapter 7Introduction to the law of contractbargain to be strictly commercial. If a man is prepared to
sell his Jaguar car for £1, the contract will not fail for lack
of consideration. The courts will not help someone who
complains of making a bad bargain.
The following are examples of cases where the con-
sideration was of little value, but, nevertheless, it was
held to be sufficient.
Similar principles apply where a person is bound by
a pre-existing contractual duty.217
Thomasv Thomas (1842)After the death of her husband, Mrs Thomas agreed to
pay rent of £1 a year in order to continue living in the
same house. It was held that the payment of £1 was
valid consideration.Chappell & Co Ltdv Nestlé Co Ltd(1959)Nestlé was running a special offer whereby members
of the public could obtain a copy of the record ‘Rockin’
Shoes’ by sending off three wrappers from Nestlé’s six-
penny chocolate bars, plus 1s 6d. The records had been
made by Hardy & Co but the copyright was owned by
Chappell & Co Ltd, which claimed that there had been
breaches of its copyright. The case turned round whether
the three wrappers were part of the consideration. The
House of Lords held that they were – even though they
were thrown away when received. In the words of Lord
Somervell, ‘A peppercorn does not cease to be good
consideration if it is established that the promisee does
not like pepper and will throw away the corn.’A person who promises to carry out a duty which he
is already obliged to perform is in reality offering noth-
ing of value. The ‘consideration’ will be insufficient.
However, if a person does more than he is bound to do,
there may be sufficient consideration. The promise may
involve a public duty imposed by law.
Collinsv Godefroy(1831)Collins was subpoenaed to give evidence in a case in
which Godefroy was a party. (A subpoena is a court
order which compels a person’s attendance at court.)
Godefroy promised to pay 6 guineas for Collins’ loss of
time. Collins’ action to recover this money failed because
he was already under a legal duty to appear in court. He
had not done anything extra.Glasbrook Bros Ltdv Glamorgan
County Council(1925)
Glasbrook Bros were the owners of a strike-hit mine.
They asked for police protection for the safety of men
whose presence was necessary to prevent the mine flood-
ing. They were unhappy with the arrangements originally
offered by the local police. Eventually it was agreed that
70 policemen would be stationed in the colliery and that
Glasbrook Bros would pay for this extra security. The
House of Lords held that, since the police had provided
more protection than they thought necessary, this con-
stituted consideration. They were entitled to payment.
Comment.Glasbrookv Glamorganwas considered
by the Court of Appeal in upholding a claim by a police
authority for £51,699 against Sheffield United Football
Club for special police services provided at the club’s
home matches between August 1982 and November
1983 (HarrisvSheffield United Football Club(1987)).Stilkv Myrick(1809)During the course of a voyage from London to the Baltic
and back, two of a ship’s crew deserted. The captain
promised to share the wages of the deserters amongst
the remaining crew. It was held that this promise was not
binding as the sailors were already contractually bound
to meet such emergencies of the voyage. They had not
provided consideration.The decision in Stilkv Myrickwas reconsidered by
the Court of Appeal in the following case.Williamsv Roffey Bros & Nicholls
(Contractors) Ltd(1990)
The defendant building contractors had a contract to
refurbish a block of 27 flats. They had sub-contracted the
carpentry work to Williams for £20,000. After the contract
had been running some months, during which time
Williams had completed nine flats and received some
£16,200 on account, it became apparent that Williams
had underestimated the cost of the work and was in
financial difficulties. The defendants, concerned that the
carpentry work would not be completed on time and that
as a result they would fall foul of a penalty clause in their