Evaluating the law on Consideration

Consideration must be sufficient but does not have to be adequate

Chappell v Nestle - chocolate wrappers deemed sufficient but being of nominal value means that they are not adequate

Fair since it follows the principle of freedom of contract - parties can give what they want as consideration

HOWEVER, if the agreement involves fraud or unfair pressure to accept a low price, this may be difficult to prove, resulting in injustices

Emotional promises

Inconsistency on whether emotional promises have any value

• White v Bluett - promise by son to stop complaining to pay debts was deemed to have no value

• Ward v Bytham - mother’s promise to love her illegitimate child was deemed sufficient

Makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients due to conflicting precedent

Past consideration is no consideration

Re McArdle - previous work on a bungalow was deemed past consideration so the payment for the work was not needed

EXCEPTION - Lampleigh v Braithwait - past consideration warrants a reward is there is an implied promise of reward or a clear expectation of a reward

Fair since an act done in the pas could be deemed a gift - this helps to stop the floodgates opening on trivial cases

HOWEVER, unlikely that trivial claims will be brought. Plus, Lampleigh exception is very hard to prove

Performing an existing duty is not sufficient consideration in a new contract with different terms

Stilk v Myrick - crew asked for more pay where they helped in an emergency, being part of a crew means that dealing with an emergency is a given

Exceptions - Hartley v Ponsonby, where something extra is done; Williams v Roffey, where there is a factual benefit; Shadwell v Shadwell, contractual duty owed to a 3rd party

Fair since a party is not doing anything extra to warrant extra payment. Prevents one party putting unfair pressure on the other to extract extra payment

However, hard to distinguish between a Stilk and Hartley situation - ‘extra’ is subjective. Modern cases are now looking more at commercial reality - Williams v Roffey. Many exception are confusing and complex