consideration (SPEM)

ao1

a promise to pay, do or give something in return for the other party's promise (both parties gain and lose something)

promisor - person making promise

promisee - person receiving promise

executory consideration - promises to do something in the future (the usual type of consideration)

executed consideration - (applies to unilateral) conduct done is the promise e.g. whoever brings a cake to next lesson gets £10

rule 1) sufficient; consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

so long as consideration is 'real and has some actual value'

Ward v Byham - consideration, keeping a child 'happy' was good consideration because the mother, by law, only had to look after the child - keeping it happy was an 'extra'

Chappell & Co v Nestle - consideration, used chocolate wrappers were good consideration as they had 'some' value

White v Bluett - no consideration; promising 'not to complain' is not consideration, he was not giving up any 'right' as there is no 'right to complain' so was not 'real'

Thomas v Thomas - consideration, £1 was good consideration, so long as consideration has some value, it will be sufficient to support a contract

Rule 2) past consideration is not good consideration; when the promise comes after the act done

Re McArdle (illustrates the rule) - no consideration, past consideration not valid when promise to make payment came after consideration had been performed, promise to make payment was not binding

Lampleigh v Braithwaite (exception) - consideration, when one party requests a service without mentioning payment, expectation of implied promise to pay

Re Casey's Patent - consideration, third party consideration, agreement of consideration had been agreed in a business situation at request of A and B

Rule 3) existing duty, carrying out existing duty will not be consideration for a new promise

Stilk v Myrick - no consideration, sailed ship back which they were already contracted to do so, so was not consideration for new promise

Hartley v Ponsonby (exception) - doing something extra to what you are contracted to do will be good consideration to support a new promise

Collins v Godefroy (public duties) - policeman required my law to turn up to court, had a public duty to do so, so nothing 'extra' done

Williams v Roffey Bros - if one party is doing their existing contract, but the other party benefits extra in some way then it will be good consideration for a new promise

Rule 4) move; consideration must move from the promisee

Tweddle v Atkinson - no consideration - agreement made was between the two fathers, son, who attempted to sue, had not given any consideration to the agreement, displays privity of contract