Consideration

• A valuable consideration... may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some detriment or loss undertaken by the other. - Currie v Misa [1875]
• Ewan Mckendrick - The orthadox interpretation of consideration is that it is based on the idea of "reciprocity;" that a promisee should not be able to enforce a promise unless he has given or promised to give something in exchange for the promise.
• Consideration ≠ motive. - Thomas v Thomas [1842].

  Testator's desire was the motive for the transaction; NOT consideration.

  Consideration was the widow's promise to pay £1/year
• Past consideration is NOT good consideration; Except Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615].
• Williams v Roffey Bros.

  A pre-existing contractual duty owed to the promisor can amount to consideration if it provides a practical benefit to the promisor (AND THERE IS ABSENCE OF DURESS)
• Stilk v Myrick [1809]

  • merely doing that which you have a legal (contractual) duty to the promisor does not amount to valid consideration.
• Hartley v Ponsoby [1857]

  • similar to Stilk v Myrick, but more sailors deserted the ship.
  • this made the voyage unsafe, and so by the rest of the sailors agreeing to undertake the unsafe voyage, they were doing MORE than their contractual obligation, in exchange for more pay.
  • is valid consideration