Consideration

Chappell v Nestlé Co

Chappell v Nestlé Co

Must have some economic value, but the value of things exchanged do not need to be equal.

Thomas v Thomas

Must have some economic value, but the value of things exchanged do not need to be equal, back up case.

Jones v Padvatton

Even giving up something of value can be consideration.

White v Bluett

Love and affection does not have economic value.

Ward v Byham

Ignored the law so the case probably won’t be followed in the future.

Re McArdle

Any consideration given cannot come before an agreement was made.

Lampleigh v Braithwait

An implied promise could come from a request.

It was clear D would reward anyone who would save his life

Re Casey’s Patent

An implied promise could come from employment.

Collins v Godefroy

Where a person is only doing something they have to do under the law, this is not good consideration in return for a promise.

Glasbrook Bros. v Glamorgan CC

Going beyond the legal/public duty.

Stilk v Myrick

Existing contractual duty.

Hartley v Ponsonby

Going beyond the contractual duty.

Williams v Roffey Bros

Practical benefit to paying more is good consideration.

Scotson v Pegg

Consideration may be found where contractual duties are owed to a third party.

Tweddle v Atkinson

A contract is usually private to the two parties who have given consideration and so the agreement cannot be applied to anyone who has not given something in consideration.

Why does the Court not care if the things exchanged are of equal value?

Price fluctuates

Judges are not good at valuing items

Freedom of contract