So consideration need not be adequate (generous enough to appear a fair
bargain in terms of monetary value), but must be sufficient (of enough
recognisable value to satisfy the courts). This is probably the most
important aspect of consideration, and underpins the other ‘rules’ which
have been developed by the courts through case law.
Consideration must not be vague
While it is not necessary to be able to specify the exact value of consideration,
it must be something tangible, or discernible, to be of value in law.
48 Contract law
should be made for this. In the contract, then, the consideration on one
side was the benefit of weighing boilers, and on the other, the entitlement
to having them returned in good condition. It can be seen that the benefit
of weighing boilers has no real market value, but is acceptable to the
courts as consideration because it is recognisable.Chappell v Nestlé(1960)
This case went to court concerning the issue of whether Nestlé should
pay Chappell royalties on records given away in exchange for chocolate
wrappers (plus money for post and packing). It was held that the
chocolate wrappers and the money were consideration for the record.
Given the right circumstances, therefore, the chocolate wrappers alone
could be valid consideration. These are obviously not adequate, having
no intrinsic value (it was established in evidence that they were thrown
away after receipt), but formed sufficient consideration.Edmonds v Lawson(2000)
The agreement of a pupil barrister ‘to enter into the close, important
and potentially very productive relationship which pupillage involves’
was held to be good consideration.Think about who ‘won’ in these cases. With whom do you think the court’s
sympathy would lie in each case?White v Bluett (1853)
A son’s promise to cease his complaints about the distribution of his
father’s estate was held to be too vague to form valid consideration.Again, with whom do you think that the court would have sympathy here?