From the onset it is prudent to underscore the fact that for a contract to be valid there must be a consideration. Consideration must be of value in the eyes in the eyes of the law. For consideration to be valuable there must be a legal benefit or a legal detriment. What amounts to a valuable consideration appears to be flexibly encapsulated in the prominent maxim; ‘consideration needs not to be adequate but sufficient’. There has been a raging debate on whether performing a preexisting legal duty amounts to any benefit and the prevailing argument is that it may incur a factual benefit on the promisor and a factual detriment to the promissee. Thus the critical is whether the preexisting legal duty will amount to sufficient consideration. This paper will critically examine the doctrine of consideration in relation to sufficient consideration rule. It also seeks to answer the question on what amounts to a sufficient consideration. The main contention in this paper is that even though consideration should be attached to value which is regarded as a benefit or a detriment, it need not to be adequate.
The rule that consideration must be sufficient and not adequate implies that there must be something of value that is exchanged between the parties. Provided that value has been attached to consideration the court will not pay attention to its adequacy. A valuable consideration in the strict sense of the law entails an interest, detriment, loss, forbearance, benefit of a party to the contract. This implies that even a nominal consideration will be sufficient for the formation of a contract. In Chappell v Nestlé the court held that the provision of chocolate bar wrappers was sufficient consideration because they increased sales and thus were of value.
The fundamental question is thus how the court determines that consideration is of value and thus can be considered to be sufficient. It has been argued that mere giving up a right that one does not have is not valuable consideration. In White vs. Bluet a son was given money by his father following a promise that he will not complain about the distribution of his father estate in his will. The issue before the court was whether the promise not to complain was a valuable consideration. The court ruled that the son had no right to complain and that such a right is not a valuable consideration in the strict legal sense. On the other hand, what amounts to sufficient consideration may be determined by the parties to the contract at the time of making and concluding the contract. It is upon the parties to the contract to determine when making the agreement what will be adequate consideration but in the eyes of the law the court will not pay attention to adequacy of consideration but only sufficiency.
It bears noting that although the consideration must incorporate a bargaining process, the bargain should not necessarily be a good bargain. It is imperative to note that for consideration to be sufficient both benefit and detriment occur to the parties although there is not mandatory requirement that they should be both present. Consideration must be sufficient in the eyes of the laws and this implies that the court has the discretion within its jurisdiction to determine the consideration given is sufficient or not.
Although the law provides that there must be consideration for any legal contractual relationship it is worth noting that the consideration should not be in equal and exact value to the benefit of loss that has been suffered. If the consideration has value in the legal sense the court will not bother to examine or try to find out the exact value or quantity. Essentially, this implies that if a car is worth $10000 and it sold at $100, the sale price will be regarded as sufficient consideration in the legal sense although it is quite glaring that it is inadequate. In the case of Thomas vs. Thomas the executors of an estate agreed that the widow will pay an annual rent of $1 and maintain the house as long as she remained a widow of the deceased. The issue before the court was whether there was sufficient consideration. The court held that the payment of $ 1 as rent was sufficient consideration. A consideration that is normal normally shows that the promisor has taken his promise to be a serious undertaking which can be legally enforced.
It is also worth noting that a consideration that was given in the past can not be relied on through a promises hat is given in the present. In other words the general rule is that past consideration is not sufficient consideration or good consideration. The promise always comes first then the consideration follows. In the case of ReMcArdle the plaintiff had undertaken to conduct some renovations in her husband’s house. She successful completed the renovations and asked the siblings in law to contribute towards the renovations she had made. The siblings promised to make the contributions but later they did not honor the promise. It was held that the promises had been made after a consideration had already been provided and therefore there was no sufficient consideration in that case. In addition the consideration that had been provided was part of her duty to do so as the wife of the deceased.
Another finding was made in Roscola v. Thomas where the claimant bought a horse from the defendant and after the transaction had been completed the defendant told the claimant that horse was sound and free from vice. The claimant realized that the horse was not actually sound as was promised. The court held that the consideration had already been provided and the promise was made after consideration has been made therefore a consideration made in the past cannot be sufficient. However, past consideration will only be sufficient consideration if the promisor and the promissee had an initial agreement that the promissee will supply him the goods. In Lampleigh v Braithwait the defendant was guilty for the crime of murder but he needed pardon from the king. He therefore requested the plaintiff to obtain the pardon from the king for him. The plaintiff successfully obtained the pardon and the defendant promised to pay him for that. It was held that consideration had been provided following the request of the promisor and therefore it was sufficient consideration. The defendant was therefore liable to pay for the promise. If the goods are actually delivered and the promisor makes a promise to pay, the past consideration will be deemed as sufficient consideration. The Privy Council in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long held that past consideration can be sufficient consideration if it is capable of being remunerated and if the partied had an earlier agreement that consideration will be provided first followed by the promise. Lord Scarman remarked that a sufficient consideration implies that it must be real, tangible and it must be attached to some value.
The general rule is that a consideration that is illusory is not a sufficient consideration. Illusory considerations are given in the following circumstances, where one is given a promise to do that which is his contractual obligation. In Stilk v. Myrick the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff during a voyage. While they were sailing two of the crew men left the ship and the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff the salaries of the two crewmen who had left. When the ship arrived at the port the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the amount that was promised. It was held that the doing that which one has an existing contractual obligation to perform does not amount to sufficient consideration. On the other hand performance of an existing legal duty does not also amount to a sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law and it is also regarded as an illusory consideration. In Collins v. Godfroy the plaintiff had been summoned by the court to come be a witness in a case that the defendant was part of. The plaintiff never adduced any evidence but the court required that he be available in court through out the session. When the trial had concluded the defendant gave the plaintiff an invoice that indicated that he was being paid for being a witness. Later the defendant refused to pay and the plaintiff sued. The court held that the plaintiff had a legal obligation to perform the act and therefore the consideration provided was not sufficient consideration.
If a person undertakes act that is not permitted by law then the act is not a sufficient consideration to a promise. This position was held in Nerot v. Wallace and Others where commissioners who were conducting a bankruptcy process were promised that they will be paid for not investigating a person who was supposed to be adjudged bankrupt. It was held that the act was an illegal act and therefore it could not be a sufficient consideration that has value in the strict legal sense.
The performance of an existing legal duty can be a sufficient consideration if there is a practical benefit to of the promise. In Ward v. Byham where a mother promised the father that she will look after the child well and ensure that he is happy and the father will have to contribute towards the maintenance of the child. It was held that the mothers act of taking care of the child although it is her duty to do so amounted to a sufficient consideration. Lord denning held that a promise to do that which one is legally meant to do can be sufficient consideration for a new promise. It has been argued the ratio decidendi of the case by lord denning is ambiguous and has not given a clear definition if the sufficient consideration in the facts of the case. However, the decisions appear to have been made in the interest of justice. The practical benefit rule was applied by in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (contractor) where the court held that the promise to make extra payment on an already existing duty was a sufficient consideration because there was a practical benefit following the new promise. In Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd. the court held that a promise that has been made to reduce the usual rent charged and the consideration that was given by the tenant was sufficient consideration that had value in the legal sense.
It has also been held that a promise that has been made to do an act that is vague and uncertain is not enforceable because the uncertain act does not amount to a sufficient consideration. This position was affirmed in White v. Bluett where the court held that the consideration was vague and uncertain and it could not amount to a sufficient consideration.
It can be conceded that the doctrine of sufficient consideration has a wide application in various contract formations and the making of promises. It is also a plausible conclusion that consideration must neither be of commercial value nor make any economical sense. It can be observed from the illustrations made above that the court has been careful to ensure that it enforces the wishes and express agreement of the parties. This is based on the fact that court has not paid attention to equivalence in value of the considerations that have ben exchanged by the parties. The court has accepted that no matter how trivial consideration may be it is regarded as sufficient consideration in the legal sense if it is valuable. Consideration must not be of a high value which implies that it must not be adequate. It can be concluded that the rule that consideration must be sufficient and not adequate has acted as a preventive mechanism to prevent the promisor from not going back on his promise to claim for an adequate consideration.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd  UKHL 1
Collins v Godefrey (1831) 1 B & Ad 950
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840), 11 Ad&E 438
Ewan McKendrick, Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
John Carter, and David Harland, Cases and materials on contract law in Australia ,(Butterworths 1998
Joseph Chitty, Chitty on Contracts, (Sweet & Maxwell 2004)
Lampleigh v Braithwaite  EWHC KB J17
Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd. (1994) 34 NSWLR 723
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long  3 All ER 65
Patrick Atiyah, Essays on Contract, (Oxford University Press, 1990)
Poole, J (2006) Textbook on Contract Law, Oxford University Press
Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669
Robert Upex, and Bennett Geoffery, "Davies On Contract. (Sweet & Maxwell London,2004)
Roscorla v. Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234
Stilk v Myrick  EWHC KB J58
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851
Ward v Byham  1 WLR 496
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  EWCA Civ 5
 Upex Robert., and Bennett Geoffery "Davies On Contract. (Sweet & Maxwell London,2004)
 Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
  UKHL 1
 (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
 McKendrick Ewan, Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
 Ibid n4
 Ibid n4
 (1842) 2 QB 851
 Eastwood v Kenyon (1840), 11 Ad&E 438
 (1951) Ch 669
 (1842) 3 QB 234
  EWHC KB J17If a person undertakes act that is not permitted by law then the act is not a sufficient consideration to a promise. This position was held in Nerot v. Wallace and Others where commissioneReferencesrs who were
  3 All ER 65
 Carter John, and Harland, David. Cases and materials on contract law in Australia ,(Butterworths 1998)
  EWHC KB J58
 Chitty Joseph, Chitty on Contracts, (Sweet & Maxwell 2004)
 (1831) 1 B & Ad 950
 462 U.S. 296 (1983)
  1 WLR 496
  EWCA Civ 5
 (1994) 34 NSWLR 723
 (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
 Atiyah, Patrick. Essays on Contract, (Oxford University Press, 1990)
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2018). The Business Law. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/the-business-law.
"The Business Law." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/the-business-law.
My Assignment Help (2018) The Business Law [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/the-business-law
[Accessed 09 April 2020].
My Assignment Help. 'The Business Law' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/the-business-law> accessed 09 April 2020.
My Assignment Help. The Business Law [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 09 April 2020]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/the-business-law.
At MyAssignmenthelp.com, we are committed to deliver quality assignment assistance in the fastest way possible. To make our service delivery fast, we have hired subject matter experts to work on different subject specific assignments. We have hired experts who owe in-depth knowledge in their respective subjects. As per their expertise, they provide geography assignment help, Physics assignment help, Strategic assignment help, history assignment help, art architecture assignment help and assistance with other subjects as well.
Answer: Issue Whether any legal obligations can be raised against CMS, CM or Lazarus Pty Ltd for the loss that is sustained by Terry? Applicable Law One of the business forms that are generally availed by the people of Australia is to run their business by way of a company. A company is created by getting the same registered as per the law of Australia. A register company is an entity which has its own existence in law. Once a company...Read More
Answer: Case 1 Issues The assessment of income is based on the residential status of the person. The income tax assessment act 1997 specifies the several provisions related with the changeability of the income tax in case of a resident or non-resident person of Australia (Wilkins, 2015). The present study revolves around determining the residential status of the person named as Jack. Jack has the visa from his first visit Australia in 20...Read More
Answer: Material Facts Samsung launched the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone in August 2016, and it was discontinued by the company in October 2016. The reason for discontinuing the smartphone was the battery issue in the phone which caused some phones to generate excessive heat. Due to excessive heat, many smartphones caught fire, and they caused physical injuries to the customers. The company recalled its smartphones and also took measures to reduc...Read More
Answer: Introduction The below report provides an in-depth analysis of the analysis of the debate which has happened between Lemon, Camerota and Reza. The issue of debate was ‘Is Islam and terrorism are the same'. The report also provides a deep analysis of each and every participant present in the debate. It also contains the intention and perspective of every party of the debate. In the end, the rights of women are also discussed in t...Read More
Answer: Introduction: In Australia, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is the key legislation which governs the operations of companies in the country. As per this Act, various duties are imposed on directors to ensure that they conduct their operations in an ethical manner without adversely affecting the interest of the company or its stakeholders. The directors have to comply with these regulations in order to avoid legal consequence...Read More
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.
Using reliable plagiarism detection software, Turnitin.com.We only provide customized 100 percent original papers.
Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat.
Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.
Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.
Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.
Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.
Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.
Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.
Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.
Our Mission Client Satisfaction
I hope I get good mark! I hope I get good mark!I hope I get good mark!I hope I get good mark!I hope I get good mark!I hope I get good mark!
HANDED IN ON TIME THOUGH GAVE A VERY SHORT TIME TO DO SO. THE WORK WAS WELL DONE TOO!!
Always impecable work. I super reccoment this service to anyone. The quality of work and agile delivery are the high points.
this was an excellent assignment I cant understand how the assignments can differ in presentation, is it that some writers are trained and some are not.