Facts: The defendant (Broom) owed debt to the claimant (the bank). The claimant asked the defendant for some security, which the defendant agreed to. The claimant tried to enforce the agreement but the defendant argued that the claimant had provided no consideration

Held: As the claimant did not take the claimant to court over the matter, this amounted to sufficient consideration

Facts: A teacher was paid more sick pay than he was entitled to. The teacher queried the overpayment but was told it was correct. By the time the Council realised their mistake, the teacher had spent most of the money

Held: The defence of estoppel prevented the council from recovering the whole sum of the overpayment because the teacher relied on the promise that the money was his and spent it

Facts: The parties were members of a charity and both could vote on how the charity's funds were to be spent. They both agreed that in consideration of the claimant using his 28 votes to support the defendant's child, the defendant would use his 28 votes to support the claimant's child. The claimant did use his votes to support the defendant's child, but the defendant did not. The claimant sued, but the defendant argued that the claimant had not provided him with any consideration.

Held: There was considerations because the claimant had given a benefit to a third party (the defendant’s child) – it does not matter that the defendant himself did not receive that benefit. Consideration can therefore be given to a third party at the promisor’s request

Facts: This case involved a competition: if you obtained 3 chocolate wrappers you could get you a reward.

Held: The chocolate wrappers were held to be sufficient consideration, despite hving no value in themselves (except they showed chocolate bars had been bought). So, a conditional gift can amount to consideration

Facts: There was a contract for some bodywork to be done on a car. The supplier promised to do the work within “6, or at most, 7 months”. The date the work was to be done was later fixed, but the supplier did not manage to meet this date. The buyer did not sue, but kept waiting for the supply. By waiting, this was seen as the buyer waiving his right to the supply to be done at the fixed date. In the end the supply was received many months later by which time the buyer was not willing to accept it.

Held: The supplier sued for non-acceptance, but the court held that the buyer's waiver was not permanent, so the supplier was no successful in their claim.

⇒ Denning: "It would be most unreasonable if, having been lenient and having waived the initial expressed time, [the buyer] should thereby have prevented himself from ever thereafter insisting on reasonable quick delivery. In my judgement, he was entitled to give a reasonable notice making time of the essence of the matter"

Facts: This case involves 3 people who were in a business partnership (it included Collier). They were jointly liable, due to the law of partnership, to pay MJ Wright £600 per month. In 1999 this sum decreased to £200. In 2000 Collier said he would be severally liable and would pay his outstanding amount individually (amounting to £15,000) so he would not have to worry about the other 2 people’s sum of money owed. Collier said the agreement for him to be severally liable was binding

Held: Court held that the promise was unenforceable. However, promissory estoppel would stop the creditor from asking for the rest of the money. There was no consideration because it was part payment, but the creditors were estopped from going back on their promise due to promissory estoppel. So, part payment as a general rule is no consideration, but if you can prove promissory estoppel then there may be an exception

Facts: The defendant promised 6 guineas to the claimant if he gave evidence in court. The claimant was summond to court anyway, so HAD to attend court and give evidence by law. The defendant subsequently refused to pay the claimant.

Held: The promise was not enforceable as there was an existing public duty to attend court

Facts: The claimants did some building for the defendant (Mrs Rees). The claimants demanded payment of £482 for the work from the defendant. The defendant - who knew the claimants were in financial difficulty - was unhappy with the work and said she would pay £300 to clear the owed debt, which the claimant reluctantly accepted. The claimants later took action to recover the remaining £182

Held: The claimants could get the remainging money follwing Foaks v Beer and Pinnel’s case → Mrs Rees had not provided consideration to support her promise of £300

Facts: Foakes owed Beer approximately £2000 after a previous judgement. Beer accepted this money to be paid by instalments if £500 was paid straight away. Foakes paid the instalments until all £2000 had been paid. However, Beer then wanted to claim interest on the debt

Held: The House of Lords held that Foakes was liable to pay interest because the interest was part of the debt owed. Their agreement was part payment of a debt and was not good consideration (Pinnel’s rule), so Beer was able to demand all the money due

Facts: The seller asked the buyer if they could deliver late. The buyer said the seller could deliver late, but on delivery the buyer refused the seller to deliver the goods.

Held: It was held the buyer waived his right to have his food delivered on time despite their being no consideration (in other words, the variation of the original contract did not require consideration, because it was a waiver)

Facts: The defendant (Braithwaite) killed someone and was sent to be hung. The defendant asked Lampleigh to seek a pardon for him from the king, which he succeeded in doing. The defendant promised to give Lampleigh £100 for doing this, but did not pay.

Held: Although this looked as though this was past consideration, as performance was requested by the promisor there was valid consideration here; so the defendant had to pay the money

Facts: Goldberg agreed to buy from Levey certain pieces of cloth (costing over £10) to be delivered within a set time. Goldberg requested verbally that Levey should delay deliver. When Levey delivered late, as a result of the request, Goldberg refused to pay delivery. Levey sued. So although Goldberg had a right to have the goods delivered within a set amount of time he chose not to exercise that right (this is waiver)

Held: McCardie J held in favour of the claimants

Facts: Pao On agreed to sell shares to Fu Ship (controlled by Lau Yiu Long) in consideration for certain shares. They agreed to protect the share value by agreeing that Pao On would keep 60% of the shares until a set date. However, a year before this date Pao On would not continue with the contract unless Lau agreed that he would indemnify himself against the remaining shares falling below a certain level. He agreed, but only to ensure confidence in the company retained. The sale continued and Pao On sought to enforce the indemnity

Held: Privy Council held the promise to perform a contractual duty that is owed to a 3rd part is valid consideration to ensure D’s indemnity promise

Facts: A person owned some patents and got a manager (Casey) to manage his patents. He then promised Casey, in return for his good service managing his patents, that he could have a 1/3 share of the rights of the patents. The question for the court was whether or not Casey provided fresh consideration for this promise

Held: Casey could enforce the promise, even though the consideration was made originally in the past: the commercial relationship between them meant that the manager would have understood payment to follow performance

Facts: Selectmove owed Inland Revenue money to be paid in instalments. Inland Revenue then demanded full payment of all the money. Selectmove argued that there had been consideration for the promise to accept instalments: they argued that paying by instalments was of greater practical benefit to the Inland Revenue than if a debtor went insolvent.

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected this argument saying there was no consideration for the promise to pay in instalments. So Williams v Roffey won’t be applied to debt part-payment

Facts: The claimant and defendant negotiated to buy the defendant’s horse. After purchase, the defendant told the claimant that the horse was “sound”, “perfect in vision” and “free from vice”. This turned out to be a lie so he bought an action against the defendant for breach of warranty. Question for the court: was the defendant’s claim enforceable?

Held: Lord Denman CJ said it was not enforceable because when the defendant made the promise, the claimant provided no consideration. To be enforceable the promise should have been made during the sale and not afterwards

Facts: Pegg promised Scotson money if he delivered some coal. Pegg argued his promise was not enforceable because Scotson provided no consideration as he was already contractually obliged to deliver the coal

Held: Surprisingly it was valid consideration as it was suggested that Scotson had suffered an additional detriment in delivery and Pegg had conferred a benefit in the delivery

Facts: An uncle promised £150/year to his Nephew if he married his fiancée (the Nephew's fiancée obviously!). So, the existing contractual duty was the marriage, and as there was no contract between the Uncle and the fiancée, the fiancée was 3rd party. Therefore, the uncle promised to pay £150 to the Nephew to perform a duty that the 3rd party already owed (to marry the fiancée).

Held: The marriage was good consideration to support promise of payment!

⇒ However, be careful: should it be enforceable because in domestic agreements it is presumed that there is no intention to create legal relations? Also, the benefit the uncle received was that he was happy to see his nephew married, and, therefore, the consideration had no economic value

Facts: Seamen were paid £5 per month. Two of the crew deserted the ship, so the captain promised to split their wages between the rest of them. The captain later refused to pay

Held: The captain's promise was not enforceable as the crew provided no consideration - they had done no more than their existing contractual duty

Facts: A couple had a daughter. The mother of the child had cheap accomodation, but the man was richer and wanted his daughter to live in his nicer house. Therefore, they all lived in the man's house. Later, the man told the woman to get out of his house.

Held: The court held she had provided consideration because she suffered detriment because she lost her accommodation

Facts: The husband of the claimant wished to let his wife have his house once he died. His executors agreed with the claimant, “in consideration” of her dead husband’s wishes, that she would have the house so long as she maintained it and paid a £1 annual rent.

Held: The £1 annual rent and keeping it well maintained was good consideration. The court in this case also pointed out that consideration has to be “something which is of some value in the eye of the law”

Facts: Money was owed to someone. They requested that the money (that was owed to them) be paid at the solicitors because it was more convenient for them

Held: Doing something, however small, above and beyond the original obligation can be consideration.

Facts: The claimant, a mother, agreed to ensure their child was “well looked after and happy” on the father’s request. The defendant promised to pay maintenance in return, which he never paid.

Held: The Court of Appeal hled that the father's promise to pay weekly maintenance money was enforceable, despite state already requiring a mother to care for her child properly. She went beyond her legal duty in ensuring the child was “WELL” looked after

Facts: If there is no economic value to the consideration the contract will likely not be enforced. A father promised his son he would not have to pay back the debt he owed him if he stopped complaining. The son promised not to complain.

Held: That promise not to complain had no economic value so contract could not be enforced

⇒ Pollock CB: "The son had no right to complain, for the father might make what distribution of his property he liked; and the son’s abstaining from what he had no right to do can be no consideration"

Facts: The defendant entered a contract to refurbish 27 flats, with a clause which stated there would be a penalty if the work was not finished on time. Some work was subcontracted to the claimants, who ran into financial difficulties after completing work on just 9 houses. Thus, the flats could not be finished on time, so the defendants offered an extra £575 per flat to the claimants to ensure it was completed on time. After doing another 8 flats the defendants did not pay the plaintiffs the full price promised, so they brought an action against the defendants

Held: It appears as though the claimants were doing no more than required under there existing contractual duty, so seems like this would fail for lack of consideration as seen in Stilk v Myrick (1809). However, the Court of Appeal held that the claimants were entitled to payment: an existing contractual duty can be valid consideration if there’s a “practical benefit” to the other party (the defendant's practical benefit was not having the penalty for being on time!)