SOURCE 3
The question is whether the three wrappers were part of the consideration.
I think that they are part of the consideration. They are so described in the
offer. ‘They [the wrappers] will help you to get smash hit recordings.’ It is
said that, when received, the wrappers are of no value to the respondents,
the Nestlé Co Ltd. This I would have though to be irrelevant. A contracting
party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does
not cease to be goods consideration if it is established that the promissee
does not like pepper and will throw away the corn.
Adapted from the judgment of Lord Somervell in Chappell and Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd
[1960] AC 87.
270 Contract law
It could be said that these cases set the boundaries of what will be accepted
as consideration.Whatever is given as consideration must be recognisable in
some way (remember – it must be of ‘some value’) but need not necessarily
be of monetary worth or market value – the price we would normally
expect. This is a good illustration of later cases refining the principle of
consideration through precedent. In White v Bluettit was decided that the
son’s promise was not of sufficient value to form valid consideration. Maybe
it was too vague, or it could be that the court felt that promises within the
confines of relationships in a family home were not appropriate. However, in
Chappell v Nestléit was held that chocolate wrappers of no apparent worth
were part of the consideration.
Revise the facts of these cases so that you can compare them.This is again about the case of the chocolate wrappers being exchanged for
a ‘free’ record. From the actual words of this judgment in Chappell v Nestléit
could be argued that it really does not matter whether consideration is ‘of
value’ at all. The judge seems to be saying that a party can request anything,
even if it is of novalue. On the other hand, if there is something recognisable
in existence, even if it has no monetary value, surely it is of value to the
person requesting it? Here it could be argued that the wrappers represented
proof of increased sales and were therefore of some value to the party
requesting them.
The case is a step forward in precedentin that the courts are taking the
opportunity to further define what will amount to sufficient consideration.
The peppercorn is a good example. It has little or no monetary worth. The
person requesting it may not like pepper, and may not want to keep the
‘corn’. However this does not matter if it can be seen and recognised as an
item by the courts, just as clearly as a piece of jewellery or any other item,
and if it is exactly the item requested by a party to a contract.