Evaluation of Consideration

• Williams v Roffey Bros 


  P: performing existing duties can be sufficient if you provide practical benefits

  KT: good business practice, freedom of contract

  CA: uncertainty

  C: protects freedom of contract but uncertain
• Chappel v Nestle 


  P: must be sufficient, not adequate

  KT: certainty, freedom of contract

  CA: little protection against bad deals

  C: certain but unfair
• Ward v Byham


  P: love and affection is sufficient

  KT: fairness

  CA: uncertainty

  C: fair but uncertain
• Re McArdle


  P: past consideration is not good consideration

  KT: certainty, protects freedom of contract

  CA: unfair

  C: certain but unfair.
• Tweddle v Atkinson


  P: consideration must move from the promisee

  KT: certainty, respects privity

  CA: rigid, unfair

  C: certain but rigid
• White v Bluett


  P: promise argued that agreeing to stop complaining was sufficient

  E: did not forfeit a legal right, complaining doesn’t have value

  A: Jones v Padvatton, both sacrificing something

  C: clarity but uncertainty
• Glasbrook Bros / Hartley v Ponsonby


  P: promisees went beyond existing duties

  E: very clear additions to their duties

  A: unclear what counts as going beyond

  C: certain but uncertain
• Scotson v Pegg


  P: promisor already under contract with third party so he was paid twice

  E: deliver did a little more than his original contract

  A: Williams v Roffey, courts inventing consideration

  C: fair but uncertain