Student ID :18748
Question 1 ...............................................................................1
Definition ...............................................................................1
Elements of consideration .....................................................2
Inconsistencies ...................................................................... 2
Reforms ................................................................................. 5
Conclusion ............................................................................. 5
Question 2 ...............................................................................6
Issue 1 ....................................................................................6
Issue 2 ....................................................................................6
Issue 3 ....................................................................................7
Issue 4 ....................................................................................8
Issue 5 ....................................................................................9
Bibliography .......................................................................... 11
Cases ....................................................................................11
Textbooks ............................................................................ 12
Articles, Journals and websites ............................................12
Question 1
Definition
Following the orthodox definition which claims consideration is based on the idea of
‘reciprocity where a promisee wont enforce a promise unless he has given or
promised to give something in exchange for the promise or unless the promisor has
obtained something in return’1, emerged the classical definition set in Curie v Misa2
where the benefit and detriment theory is established. This was criticized by Atiyah
who argued that courts use consideration in a broader sense than bargain and could
1
Ashley, C. D. (1913). The Doctrine of Consideration. Harvard Law Review, 26(5), 429-436
2
Currie v Misa LR 10 Ex 153; LR 1 App Cas 554
, enforce a promise only when they find a “good reason” to3. Treital counters this by
stating that Atiyah’s “good reason” is vague4. More recent developments of the
definition links in favour to Atiyah as seen in Dunlop v Selfridge5 where Lord Dunedin
uses Sir Frederick Pollock definition.
Elements of consideration
There are four main elements of consideration. The first being past consideration is
not good consideration unless the act was done at a promisor’s request6. The second
is that consideration must move from the promisee but not necessarily the
promisor.7 The third element would be that performance of existing duties is not
consideration8, however going beyond the existing duty may amount to
consideration.9 The final element would be consideration must be of economic
value10.
Inconsistencies
The candidate finds that in order to discuss Lord Golf’s statement, it would be wise
to look into the inconsistencies the doctrine harbors.
One inconsistency would regard the courts definition of ‘”sufficient”, where
consideration must be sufficient, it need not be adequate. In Thomas v Thomas11, it
was held that economic value is sufficient in the eyes of the law, this was approved
in the case of White v Bluett12, where courts further narrowed the definition as they
3
Atiyah, P.S., Essays on Contract (Clarendon Press, 1986) 191-192.
4
Treitel, G.H., The Law of Contract (13th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011) 74.
5
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1 (26 April 1915), [1915] AC 847
6
Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615] EWHC KB J 17, (1615) Hobart 105, 80 ER 255
7
Poole, J., Jill Poole's Textbook on Contract Law (13th edn, Oxford University Press 2020) 126
8
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950; 109 ER 1040
9
Ward v Byham, [1956] 2 All ER 318, [1956] 1 WLR 496
10
Stone, R., Contract Law (3rd edn, Routledge 2018) 85
11
Thomas v Thomas, (1842) 2 QB 851
12
White v Bluett
Question 1 ...............................................................................1
Definition ...............................................................................1
Elements of consideration .....................................................2
Inconsistencies ...................................................................... 2
Reforms ................................................................................. 5
Conclusion ............................................................................. 5
Question 2 ...............................................................................6
Issue 1 ....................................................................................6
Issue 2 ....................................................................................6
Issue 3 ....................................................................................7
Issue 4 ....................................................................................8
Issue 5 ....................................................................................9
Bibliography .......................................................................... 11
Cases ....................................................................................11
Textbooks ............................................................................ 12
Articles, Journals and websites ............................................12
Question 1
Definition
Following the orthodox definition which claims consideration is based on the idea of
‘reciprocity where a promisee wont enforce a promise unless he has given or
promised to give something in exchange for the promise or unless the promisor has
obtained something in return’1, emerged the classical definition set in Curie v Misa2
where the benefit and detriment theory is established. This was criticized by Atiyah
who argued that courts use consideration in a broader sense than bargain and could
1
Ashley, C. D. (1913). The Doctrine of Consideration. Harvard Law Review, 26(5), 429-436
2
Currie v Misa LR 10 Ex 153; LR 1 App Cas 554
, enforce a promise only when they find a “good reason” to3. Treital counters this by
stating that Atiyah’s “good reason” is vague4. More recent developments of the
definition links in favour to Atiyah as seen in Dunlop v Selfridge5 where Lord Dunedin
uses Sir Frederick Pollock definition.
Elements of consideration
There are four main elements of consideration. The first being past consideration is
not good consideration unless the act was done at a promisor’s request6. The second
is that consideration must move from the promisee but not necessarily the
promisor.7 The third element would be that performance of existing duties is not
consideration8, however going beyond the existing duty may amount to
consideration.9 The final element would be consideration must be of economic
value10.
Inconsistencies
The candidate finds that in order to discuss Lord Golf’s statement, it would be wise
to look into the inconsistencies the doctrine harbors.
One inconsistency would regard the courts definition of ‘”sufficient”, where
consideration must be sufficient, it need not be adequate. In Thomas v Thomas11, it
was held that economic value is sufficient in the eyes of the law, this was approved
in the case of White v Bluett12, where courts further narrowed the definition as they
3
Atiyah, P.S., Essays on Contract (Clarendon Press, 1986) 191-192.
4
Treitel, G.H., The Law of Contract (13th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011) 74.
5
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1 (26 April 1915), [1915] AC 847
6
Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615] EWHC KB J 17, (1615) Hobart 105, 80 ER 255
7
Poole, J., Jill Poole's Textbook on Contract Law (13th edn, Oxford University Press 2020) 126
8
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950; 109 ER 1040
9
Ward v Byham, [1956] 2 All ER 318, [1956] 1 WLR 496
10
Stone, R., Contract Law (3rd edn, Routledge 2018) 85
11
Thomas v Thomas, (1842) 2 QB 851
12
White v Bluett
