• General rules for consideration: -

1. Consideration should be sufficient, it need not be adequate. (Thomas v Thomas): - Rent of 1

pound was held to be valid Chappel Vs Nestle: Chocolate wrapper was held to be adequate
consideration
2.
3. .Consideration should have some economic value.

• Every tangible good has some economic value.

• A promise based on emotions doesn’t have any economic value (White v bluett) The court held
that there was no consideration given by the son which would absolve him of having to repay
the debt to his father’s estate. The court also believed that the son had no right to complain as
the father was free to distribute his property as he wished. As a result, ceasing from complaining
was not consideration and was ultimately an intangible promise.

• Hamer Vs Sidway ; Only a valuable consideration upholds an executory contract. The

consideration must be something of value--something either beneficial to one party or
disadvantageous to the other, in a pecuniary sense. Held: Refraining from bad habits is not good
consideration.

4) Past consideration does not amount to consideration. Promise has to come

before the act is done (Roscorla v Thomas0
• Re Mcardle). William McArdle left a house to his five children in equal shares, subject to a life
interest for his widow. The wife of one of these sons, Mrs Marjorie McArdle, carried out
improvements to the house amounting to £488. She also bore the cost of these repairs. After
the repairs had been carried out, she got all the five children of McArdle to sign a document in
which they promised to repay Mrs McArdle the £488 out of the estate when it was eventually
distributed. After the testator’s widow died, Mrs McArdle asked for payment. However, the
other four sons refused to pay her. She tried to enforce her interest in the property in court.

• Mrs McArdle had already performed the work before she asked for payment. Her consideration
was in the past. Past consideration is not good consideration. Therefore, the agreement was
unenforceable

• Exceptions to past consideration:

• 1. (Pao Vs Lau) – Lord denning gave conditions for past consideration to be good consideration.

• The act was carried out on the promisor’s request.

• Even if the promise was made in past, it will be good consideration if there is ‘implied
understanding of payment’. Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

• Existing Duties:
• 1. Existing duties towards law
• If the person whose already under an existing duty by law does what he is obligated under that
duty, there will be no consideration however, if he does something extra than this will amount
to a fresh consideration from his side that will make a promise binding Ward v Byham

• Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 House of Lords

The defendant owners of a colliery asked the police to provide protection during a miner's
strike. The police provided the protection as requested and provided the man power as directed
by the defendants although they disputed the level of protection required to keep the peace. At
the end of the strike the police submitted an invoice to cover the extra costs of providing the
protection. The defendants refused to pay arguing that the police were under an existing public
duty to provide protection and keep the peace.

Held :In providing additional officers to that required, the police had gone beyond their existing
duty. They were therefore entitled to payment

• Existing duties towards Promisor

• • If the person whose already under an existing duty to promisor, does what he is obligated
under that duty, there will be no consideration however, if he does something ‘CONSIDERABLY
EXTRA’ than this will amount to a fresh consideration from his side that will make a promise
binding.

• Hartley v Ponsonby): Held: The crew were entitled to the extra payment promised on the
grounds that either they had gone beyond their existing contractual duty or that the voyage had
become too dangerous frustrating the original contract and leaving the crew free to negotiate a
new contract.

• Doing only ‘EXTRA’ work won’t suffice to be a fresh consideration for the purposes of existing
duties towards promisor (Stilk v Myrick).

• Practical Benefit: Practical benefit is the extra benefit is accrued to the promisor on the
completion of an existing duty of the Promisee, provided there is no economic duress, in this
case (Williams v Rofey bros) the practical benefit was the saving of time and money for finding a
new contractor, the promisor was saved from penalty clause.

• Existing duties to pay debt

• (Pinnel’s case): Part payment of debt will never suffice to full payment except where there is
extra consideration given by debtor in the form of : i) Earlier Payment ii) More convenience in
terms of payment iii) Giving some object with the part payment.

• Pinnel’s case) was affirmed in the case of (Foakes v Beer). Part payment by third party. Foakes
Vs Beer

• Promissory Estoppel: The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel holds a promise binding even though
it’s not supported by consideration this was introduced in the case of (Hughes v Metropolitan
 Railways). Courts held that the promise will be binding even though it doesn’t have a
consideration as it would be unfair to tenant if landlord takes back its promise

• Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130

• Lack of consideration can still amount to estoppel.

• Issues: The defendants argued that the agreement to pay the rent at a reduced rate applied to
the whole term of the lease. They argued that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming that
the rent should be higher. 

• Held:. Denning J stated that the cases showed that a promise which the promisor knew was
going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made was enforceable despite a lack of
consideration. The time had come for this to be recognized as giving rise to an estoppel. Here,
the plaintiffs had made a binding promise. However, the evidence showed this only applied
during the war. Therefore, after the war the defendants were liable for the full rent.

• Combe v Combe [1951] The court held that the wife could only enforce her agreement for the
payment which was promised by the husband if she had given consideration. The court found
that no consideration was given by the wife as she had not agreed to apply for the maintenance
that was promised by the husband. The husband did not request the wife to refrain from taking
the maintenance payment and therefore the wife could not claim for the money.

Past consideration is never good consideration

Consideration is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some
forbearance, detriment, loss suffered or undertaken by other as explained in Curie v Misa.
Consideration has been called as “badge of enforceability” it is based around on the idea of
benefit to the person making the promise and a detriment to the person whom promise is
made. However, either is sufficient for valid consideration.
There is general rule that if there is an executed act means if the performance has been
completed and promise came after the act this is known as past consideration and law raises
the presumption that such kind of promises will not be enforceable. For example if someone
clean the room and then his mother promises to give him some money for cleaning that
promise will not be enforceable as it came after the act was done, although the situation would
be different if son had acted on mother’s request. In Re McArdle (1951), after the death of the
mother, five children inherited the house. One of the daughters in law carried out home
improvement and paid for it. The other four siblings promised to pay her £488 for which they
signed a document, later on they refused to make payment. The court held that they are not
legally bound to pay money as the promise came after the act has been performed and was
therefore past consideration.
However there are certain conditions have been specified in the Pau on lau yiu long which
need to be satisfied for a past consideration to be good consideration. Firstly , if the act
constituting consideration have been done on promisor’s request Lampleigh v Braithwaite
(1615) in which the defendant, Braithwaite, killed a man. He asked the plaintiff, Lampleigh to
secure him a pardon from the king. The plaintiff spent many days doing this, riding and
journeying at his own cost across the country to where the King was and back again.
Afterwards, the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff £100 in gratitude. He later failed to pay
the money. The plaintiff sued. Bowen LJ said: ‘A mere voluntary courtesy will not have a
consideration to uphold an assumpsit. But if that courtiesie were moved by a suit or request of
the party that gives the assumpsit, it will bind’.
Seconldy, if there was implied understanding of payment means if parties have understand that
the work was to be paid in some way eithey by money or other benefit Re Casey’s Patents
[1892] Due to the commercial relationship of the parties, it was presumed payment would
eventually be promised despite it not being so at the time of performance of the contractual
requirements. a past service raises an implication that at the time it was entered it was to be
paid for, and…  when you get in the subsequent document a  promise to pay that promise may
be treated… as an admission which… fixes the amount of that reasonable remuneration’.
Finally, if the promise was made prior to the acts constituting the consideration (the clear act
and clear promises)
In conclusion, in light of aforementioned cases it is concluded that past is not consideration
and here is justification for this, that if the act is performed before the promise then it is
obvious that it was not done in any return of consideration it was just mere inference by the
actor that his act would be rewarded , promisor is not bound to pay.