Ao3-consideration

• Point 1: consideration need not be adequate so long as it is sufficient, law is not concerned with whether a bargain is fair
• What 2 cases show that consideration only needs to be sufficient?

  Thomas v Thomas - £1 per year by widow was consideration;

  Chapelle v nestle - chocolate wrappers is sufficient consideration despite no ordinary person considering it to have any value in the real world
• point 1 explain: what amounts to adequate value is up for parties themselves to decide. Courts do not care whether the deal is adequate or fair so long as it's sufficient. Demonstrates courts desperation and willingness to always validate agreements even if they are outrageous and unfair
• Point 1 develop: gives parties freedom and flexibility in their own contracts which in turn frees up court time and money for more serious contractual breaches; parties are prevented from making claims regarding unfair deals THEY agreed to
• Point 1 counterpoint: conflicts criminal law of fraud, and may be evidence of coercion on the part of person who benefits as they are getting more compared to the other
• point 2: past consideration is not good consideration, conflicting views on whether this is logical or unfair
• what 2 conflicting cases are there regarding past consideration?

  Re McArdle - many regard this as unfair because there was promise of payment for work already done, but then they changed their minds and didn't pay. Court wouldnt enforce payment because past consideration isn't good consideration

  Re Casey's patent - implied promise of third of shared of money for completing work on patent. This was enforced by the courts
• point 2 explain: the distinction between re McArdle and re Casey's patent is that in re McArdle payment wasnt offered until after she did the work, whereas in Casey the claimant may not have completed work prior to this implied promise. he finished off this work with the presumption that he would be paid
• point 2 develop: main justification for past consideration rule is that it prevents people from taking advantage and forcing people into contracts for goods and services they didn't order. This area can be logical and fair in preventing exploitation of people
• point 2 FFD: argument against allowing past consideration is that it would lead to a floodgate of claims, however this is a poor argument as many small cases wont go to court due to costs of litigation, and bigger cases will typically be resolved by businesses themselves on basis that reasonable amount of money will be paid if work is done
• point 2 counterpoint: past consideration rule is not practical as it is not in line with business practices, e.g a person contracted to carry out work regarding construction of a building may discuss costs of materials and an approximate amount of money which business will pay once work is done
• Point 2 conclusion: rule of past consideration needs to change in order to be in line with how most businesses make agreements; on basis of past consideration
• point 3: inconsistent decisions regarding performing an existing duty
• what 3 cases demonstrate conflicting decisions regarding an existing duty?

  Stilk v myrick -claimants didn't get money as they were doing what terms of contract expected them to do;

  Hartley v ponsonby - doing what they were contracted to do but by boarding extra people they put themselves in danger, (new term) therefore they deserved extra money;

  Williams v roffey - claimant was doing what he was contracted to do but this means roffey would earn extra money from Williams work, therefore William deserved the extra pay because roffey willingly offered it in the first place
• point 3 explain: issues with inconsistent decisions may make it harder for lawyers to advise clients/predict case outcomes
• point 3 counterpoint: however, courts show that existing duty rule is dependant on individual merits/facts of each case such as whether there is variation in terms of the contract, by doing extra is that then a new contract, and if there was pressure involved in paying out more money= subjective but demonstrates courts determination to decide whether there is consideration rather than try to be consistent
• point 4: court may be stretching ideas of consideration
• Point 4 Evidence: in ward v byham, mother's "love and affection" to make her child happy was regarded as consideration;

  In Williams v roffey, williams extra payment was enforced for work he was already contracted to do
• point 4 explain: courts may have been biased towards mother in ward v byham: does love and affection have real value? Surely it is already generally considered part of a parents duty to take care of their child's wellbeing, including making them feel loved.

  Courts may have been biased towards Williams, the small business in the case
• point 4 develop: it is good that Williams vulnerability as a small business was taken into account and supported, however any potential bias from the courts in decision making isn't fair and only creates confusion and uncertainty
• reform ideas

  rules on sufficient consideration should be clarified especially regarding legal duties and rights
• argued consideration is not an important aspect of contracts

  professor atiyah
• what did law commission suggest in 1937?

  written promise should be binding with or without consideration;

  past consideration and existing duty should be allowed as good consideration