consideration

• exectued- carried out.

  executory- not yet been carried out.
• consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Chappell & Co V Nestlé: wrappers were sufficient consideration for music records.- *KEY CASE* (must be used in every answer involving consideration).
• sufficient consideration: is it real?

  Is it real and tangible?- can see it, touch it, has some impact

  Does it have value in the eyes of the law?

  Emotions, love and affection not consideration e.g White & Bluet
• Past consideration rule: Consideration cannot be in the past- Re McArdle

  Unless payment was implied/ expected- Lampleigh V Braithwaite
• Re McArdle- consideration was past as the work had been done before the promise was made. The promise to contribute towards the costs of the house repairs was not a valid contract.

  Lampleigh V Braithwaite- B had been sentenced to death, asked L to speak to king to give pardon for murder in exchange for £100 B never paid, there was good consideration although promise to pay came AFTER L had performed service
• Consideration- what one party gives (or promises to give) in exchange for the other party's performance (or promise of performance).
• Performing an existing duty- if you have an existing contractual duty it is not good consideration BUT if you go above and beyond o an extra benefit is gained it IS good consideration- e.g. Williams V Roffey (there was a benefit gained from Roffey as they didn't have to pay delayed penalty).
• Performing an existing duty- promising to do something you already have to do is not good consideration
• Performing an existing duty- legal and contractual duties- Stilk V Myrick (only 2 deserted they weren't going above and beyond, contractually they had to do the work regardless)
• Legal and contractual duties (Performing an existing duty)- Hartley V Ponsonby- the people who stayed had to go above and beyond to cover the work of the ppl who deserted
• if you perform an existing legal/ public duty not good consideration- Collins V Godefroy- was promised payment if showed up to court, attending court is a legal obligation and you must go regardless
• Executedcarried out.

  • Executorynot yet been carried out 
• • Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequatechappell and co v nestle – wrappers were sufficient consideration *must be in your answer, key case*
• Sufficient consideration:

  • Real- Is it real?
  • Tangible- can see it touch it, has some impact 
  • Value in eyes of the law 
• Emotions, love and affection not consideration e.g. white v bluet 
• Past consideration:

  Cant be in the past – Re McArdle 

  • Unless payment was implied/expectedLampleigh v Braithwaite
• Performing an existing duty is not good consideration, but if an extra benefit is gained, it is good consideration, as evidenced in the case of Williams v Roffey.
• Promising to do something you already have to do is not good consideration, as evidenced in the case of Stilk v Myrick.
• If you perform an existing Legal/ public duty, it is not good consideration, as evidenced in the case of Collins v Godefroy.