Consideration Consideration essential element in agreement However, it is no important in Deed.

Definition a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss of responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Lush J. in Currie v Misa (1875) This performance can be looked at as detriment to the party performing or a benefit to the other party, thus providing the consideration for the other partys promise Another: Act or forbearance or promise by one party is the price for a promise of another party. Lord Dunedin in Dunlo !neu"ati# T$re Co Ltd v %elfrid&e ' Co Ltd(1(15) [For e ecutor consideration! "his sho# idea of e change, $done or not done or a promise e change for another promise% $Another definition of consideration% "ypes -ules of C: )*e#uted Consideration (differ Consideration must fro" e*e#utor$) move from the promisee but not &romisor #ill only bind necessarily to the to his promise legally if promisor. promisee perform the act re'uired. Consideration need sufficient but not ade'uate Consideration is suffi#ient even Consideration not it is in the future (e*e#utor$) consist of e isting For eg. , ( promise to duty send the goods and ) Consideration must promise to pay on not be past. delivery. *oney payment in the future $not yet performed% is sufficient as consideration o Currie v *isas definition ignore the e ecutory type o +o#ever, Currie v *isa still remain useful to determine #hether there is consideration $applied in ,illiam v -offey .ros n /icholls 0td [discussed later!% o .ut it cannot cover all decisions of court.

+ule 1, Consideration must move from the promisee but not necessarily to the promisor

Forbid to sue: +ule 1, Consideration must be 4sufficient but need not be D brought a promise and 4ade'uate Claimant did not promised Claimant claim from the not to sue but later sue D1 promise #hich is occur bt# C by Claimant not sue promisor and promisee &romisee paid one pound for 2alid as given benefit of some #ithout provide any one year rent is sufficient but degree of forbearance and D consideration1 /o not consider any ade'uate received it1 -llian#e 6an. v consideration1 Cro" ton J, commercial value1 2alid C1 6roo" 9Co""er#ial #ase: Consideration must move Tho"as v Tho"as Contrast: [Domestic case! from party entitled to sue +usband promise to pay $promisee%1 Tweddle v -t.inson -e'uire to collect 4-ubbish and ,ife forbear to sue ,rapper and give to [although +usband did not /o consideration to#ard promisor and get a cheaper ask not to sue!1 /ot valid C promisor but there is from price 3 4alid C3 3f he does as husband did not intent promisee1 2alid C1 + v La"/ie something $a% and pay money #ife not to sue1 Co"/e v Co"/e #hen using debit card $b% in order to get the supply goods, then $a% and $b% #ill be &erhaps, Court #ill be to buy things. regarded as consideration.3 more ready to find a 3ssuer promise Cha el v 5estle consideration regard to [promisor! to pay for issue of 5ustice, policy or in the use of debit card actual commercial practise. and supplier of the /atural love and affection is goods [promisee! not sufficient consideration1 provide consideration Tweddle v -t.inson C truthful believe he has right to the customer. to sue but in fact there is $Consideration not none, and he forbid to sue "emporary time1losing of pointed to promisor%. initially1 2alid C.1 Callisher v possession1 2alid C1 6is#hoffshei" 6ain/rid&e v 7ir"stone3 /o detriment to promisee but &romise to give the thing benefit to promisor [although borro#ed to be returned in D kne# he has no right to sue seemed not from the perfect form but return #ith but promised not to sue1 /ot promisee!12alid1 0illia" v damage form [so the o#ner valid1 0ade v %i"on +offe$ lose the thing for temporary time still constitute valid C! .oth side benefit #ithout any party suffer and the benefit felt appreciate to #hat C to promisor came from D did, and out of morally promisee1 2alid C1 feeling, he promise C a )d"onds v Lawson re#ard but later refuse to pay1 1222 /ot 2alid3 )astwood v 8en$on Another point is that this is past consideration

Forbearance to do D refrain from he has the legal right to do [smoking and drinking!1 2alid1 Ha"er v %idwa$ 9;% #ase3;n#le and ne hew: /o more economic value argument D cease from complaining does not have economic value so no consideration1 0hite v 6luett

D refrain from #hat he has no legal right to do [refrain from Later cases did not consider this complaining!1 /. 2alid1 0hite argument anymore: v 6luett 97ather and %on: Another Argument, in +amer v 6id#ay, there is benefit to uncle to have the benefit to have a close relative #hich has good habit. ,rappers in Cha ell v 5estl> had any economic value either.

Ha"er v %idwa$, there is still no economic value for to stop smoking and Another Argument, <ne of the someone drinking reason that 0hite v 6luett n Ha"er v %idwa$ decided differently maybe due to 0ard v 6$ha"3 Court of social policy issue Appeal, ho#ever, seems to =n ,hite, maybe #e have found consideration in can argue that son had the mothers promise to ensure that the child #as the legal right to 4speak (#o" lain) and happy. not he refrain from ? 4speak, is it same in This does not involve +amer that he limit his anything of economic legal freedom7 value. *ore acceptable if enforce uncles promise rather than fathers promise.

+ule @, Consideration not consist of e isting duty 8st: under legal la# to perform, no consideration D promised C a re#ard for Cs subpoena1 / 2alid1 C under legal duty so not valid C1 Collin 4 Aodefro$ Contrast: D re'uest for special protection from police1 2alid C1 Although &olices duty is to provide ade'uate protection to persons, but if a person re'uire special protection from the police $the police #ithout discharge his basic protection%, then, there is a consideration1 Alas/roo. 6ros Ltd v Ala"or&an CC Contrast: D did not re'uest for special protection but created a situation #hich re'uire large police support on the surrounding1 /ot 2alid1 +eadin& 7estival v 0est (B-C) Bor.shire !oli#e -uthorit$ 122C Contrast: D asked once for police service and police come regularly after#ard #ithout re'uest of D1 2alid1 offi#ers to attend regularly inside a club9s grounds constituted the provision of :special police services:1 Harris v %heffield ;nited 7oot/all Clu/ Ltd

; reasonings: C had e ceed the statutory duty to look after a child and make sure the child 4happy. 0ord Denning come to same conclusion #ith different interpretation: <ven someone under e isting duty to perform still can regarded as good consideration as it bring benefit to promisor 0ord Denning repeat the same vie# under ,illiam v ,illiam 8=>? case o A promise to perform e isting duty #hich benefit to promisor is sufficient consideration as long as there in no contrast with public interest. &ublic interest issue can be seen in the case of: Collins v @odefroy 8AB8 &ublic interest issue may related under economic duress $discussed in other chapters%

;nd 1rd promise to perform to the B party, but is an e isting contract obligation, good consideration D promised to a#ard C if C get married #hich in fact C already engaging at the moment1 2alid1 %hadwell v %hadwell C suffered detriment that he may incur additional e penses #hich he e pect from promise allo#ance from uncle And Cncle 4interest in close relative marriage.

Brd 1e isting obligation D that o#ed under a contract #ith the same party making the ne# promise, no consideration "he performance of an e isting contractual obligation could never be good consideration for a fresh promise from the person to #hom the obligation #as o#ed1 %til. v M$ri#. 3n this case, ; seamen deserted at a port before arrive destination and Captain assert #ill pay e tra to the seamen #ho choose to continue to stay [they did not e ceed their e isting duty! Desertion of #rew Dust sa"e as death o##ur durin& the vo$a&e so no #onsideration rovided for the ro"ise 9no e*#eedin& their dut$: Eudge give the ; e ample #hich might give rise consideration: o 3f cre# at free liberty $no ctt%, then they choose to stay, they may provide consideration o 3f captain unpredictable discharge ; cre#, then others not been compelled to take the #hole duty and they agreed later may provide consideration.

Contrast: 8? cre# desert1 2alid Consideration for Captain promise as are too "an$ desertion of #rew "a.e the vo$a&e /e#o"e dan&erous, the re"ainin& #rew not "ore /ound under ori&inal #tt to ro#eed the vo$a&e and free to enter another fresh /ar&ain [e ceeding their c.duty! Hartle$ v !onson/$ Contrast: &romise to increase additional payment under original ctt if increase letter of credit12alid C as increase the letter of credit whi#h increase additional contractual obligation in result of increase detriment [consideration formed! 1 The -tlanti# 6aron 1(7(

&romised to do something if C did the act re'uired #hich already under contractual obligation1 2alid C1D had the benefit and there is no important #hether C has contract #ith Brd party3 %#otson v !e&& [if the promise made within the same party (not with 3rd party) under existing rd ctt then will deal with 3 limb]

Contrast: *other look after child and make sure the child happy1 2alid10ard v 6$ha"

Contrast: D promised to pay more for his 4practical benefit 1 2alid C1 0illia" 4 +offe$ 6ros Consideration must moved from promise? o 3n this case, benefit to promisor $D% is not moved from promisee$C%. o "here is enough #ith practical benefit. o )ven thou&h there is un.nown #onsideration "oved fro" C, but there is commercial advantage to both side in pragmatic vie# o Fuote, .usiness *an kno# their business very #ell even when he &rant a indul&en#e, so to find a consideration from the earlier correspondence is not a difficult task.

&rinciples applied: o - #ontra#t with 6, su l$ goods or service to 6 in return of a$"ent -e 6electmove limit the application to goods or service ctt o 6efore - #o" lete, 6 has reason to dou/t whether - will /e #o" lete on his side dut$ o 6 ro"ise to - an additional #ost for #o" letion on ti"e o 3n the result, . obtain practical benefit o . promise is not under economic duress %outh Cari//ean Tradin& Ltd (E%CTF) v Trafi&ura 6eeher 64 122G "hreaten not to perform e isting duty cannot relied on the &. since it is similar to duress o 6o, benefit to . can be regarded as consideration to .. $&romise is binding% o &ractical benefits in this case: o they had avoided the inconvenience of finding other carpenters to #o" lete the wor. (and the ossi/ilit$ of /ein& #har&ed "ore), o circumvented the possible enforcement a penalty clause by employer for late completion, and agreed a different method for paying the plaintiffs.

+o#ever, this can be counter1argued by the Ansons point that in fact promisee had provide the consideration.

Application: o Firstly, it #ill not be applied #here there is no 9practical9 benefit to the promisor o 6econdly, can be argued that promisee have to change his plan after receive the ne# promise therefore constitute ne# consideration for ne# promise 3t #ould appear that this consideration if valid, #ould be found in the performance is the contract #as unilateral Gnly , perform then only promise from can be enforced Anson o Brd, cannot be applied in part payment1 +e %ele#t"ove Doubted point: %outh Cari//ean Tradin& Ltd (E%CTF) v Trafi&ura 6eeher 64 122G

Colman E doubted the correctness of the decision in ,illiam v -offey as it is inconsistent #ith the long standing rule that consideration must move from the promisee Comment:

+ule G, &ast consideration A promise #hich is given only after consideration has been completed1 /. 2alid1 +e M# -rdle )*#e tion @, 6ubse'uent promise replace the initial nd promise to a#ard C #hich ; promise contended as #ithout consideration. D refuse to fulfil any promise1 )*#e tion 1, &romisor ask Consideration for 8st promise promisee to perform then although past still valid after#ard promise a re#ard1 consideration for ;nd promise1 the performance is valid C !ao <n v Lau Biu Lon& even though is past as it is +o#ever, re'uirements re'uested but not voluntary1 must be fulfilled La" lei&h v 6rathwait o "he act constituting the consideration must have )*#e tion 1, &romisor ask been done at the help from promisee, although promisors re'uest. did not promise to pay at the $6ee, for e ample, time but after performance, 0ampleigh v .raith#ait e pected #ill pay to promisee $8H8>%.% at that time, later promised to pay and break the promise1 "he performance although o "he parties must have past still a valid C.1 +e understood that the Case$Fs !atent #ork #as to be paid for in some #ay, either by money or some other +o/ert Du*/ur$, benefit. [implication of 3f you call a local promise! $6ee, for garage to repair your e ample, -e Caseys car, then you cannot &atents $8A=;%.% e pect for free. .ut if you call your o "he promise #ould be friend, then it maybe legally enforceable $a other#ise valid consideration% if it had been made prior to the acts constituting the consideration. o 3f these three conditions apply, the subse'uent promise becomes enforceable.

Application: 2nd condition issue o This see"s li.e an implication of promise. o The #ourt will need to ta.e an ob5ective approach and de#ide what reasona/le arties in this situation would have e* e#ted as re&ards the Huestion of whether the wor. was done in the #lear anti#i ation of a$"ent. o

Consideration in Cnilateral Gffer Cha ell Co. Ltd v 5estle Co. Ltd 0ord stated that "he parties can choose #hat consideration they #ant. 3f he does something $a% and pay money $b% in order to get the supply goods, then $a% and $b% #ill be regarded as consideration.

o o

There is more likely implication of remuneration #ill arise in commercial cases su#h as in -e Caseys Although promisor did not &atent and &ao Gn v benefit from promisee [in this 0au )iu 0ong case, #rapper!, but the consideration to support a 6ut this is not likely in promise consists of #hatever friend or family cases has been re'uested in e change by the promisor. su#h as -e *cArdle. 3f save someone is dro#ning, you #ill not e pect to get re#ard therefore fail under this test Gn this basis catching influenIa [Carlil! and remaining a #ido# ["homas v "homas! #ould be part of the consideration to support the promise Carlil Eudgement [Consideration!: .enefit to promisor is the sale Distinct inconvenience, not to say a detriment, to any person trouble #ho so uses the smoke ball as re'uested.