Consideration

• Consideration is what passes from one contractual party to another; each party in a contract must give something of value. It is a promise to pay, do or give something in return for the other party's promise so both parties gain something and lose something. It is in effect the proof that an agreements exists and the classic definition is from Currie v Misa as 'some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered on undertaken by the other.'
• The House of Lords in Dunlop v Selfridge emphasised the bargain element of a contract and how it is where one party will do something for the other if the other does something for them.
• There are two types of consideration; executory consideration where consideration has not already happened and it involves a promise to perform certain actions in the future. This is the most usual type of consideration. The other type is executed consideration which applies to unilateral contracts, where the offeree doesnt promise anything but does some act.~
• Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Sufficiency means the consideration must be real and have some value, so the wrappers in Chappell v Nestle were sufficient consideration. Natural love and affection was not seen as sufficient consideration in White v Bluett but keeping a child 'happy' was seen as sufficient in Ward v Byham because this was additional to the legal requirement of looking after the child.
• Past consideration is not good consideration unless there is an implied promise to pay. Generally, if the promise to pay comes after the work is done (Re McCardle) or a warranty is given after purchase (Roscorla v Thomas), it is not consideration. However, if there is an implied promise to pay at the time the agreement is made, it can be good consideration as in Lampleigh v Braithwaite and Re Casey's Patent.
• Performing a pre-existing duty cannot be the consideration for a new contract, Stilk v Myrick, although there is an exception to this rule if the person performing the contract does significant 'extra' work as demonstrated in Hartley v Ponsonby where the remaining crew took on the additional task of sailing an 'unsafe' ship home as a result of the 19 crew members who had deserted the ship.
• This rule also applies to people performing a public duty such as the police, as in Collins v Godefoy where there was no consideration because the police officer was already required by law to turn up to court and give evidence, he hadn't done anything extra. Compared to in Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council where the police had not only provided protection but also additional men.
• Also, in Williams v Roffey Bros, this rule was developed further so that the 'extra' element was satisfied if the other party benefited in some way or avoided a disadvantage and the practical benefit in Roffey Bros not having to pay a sum for delay was good consideration.
• Finally, consideration must move from the promisee so the promise must provide consideration which was not established in Tweddle v Atkinson.