1.

PERFORMANCE OF AN EXISTING LEGAL DUTY, WHETHER A PUBLIC DUTY OR A CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO THE
PROMISOR, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO GOOD CONSIDERATION. DISCUSS, WITH REFERENCE TO DECIDED CASES, TO
WHAT EXTENT DOES THIS VIEW HOLD TRUE TODAY.

INTRODUCTION
ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSIDERATION IS THAT A PROMISE TO PERFORM OR THE PERFORMANCE OF A PRE-
EXISTING DUTY, WHETHER PUBLIC OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY IS NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
PUBLIC DUTY - DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW OF A PUBLIC OFFICER TOWARDS THE GENERAL PUBLIC
CONTRACTUAL DUTY - DUTIES THAT EACH PARTY IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IN A CONTRACT AGREEMENT
IN TERMS OF PUBLIC DUTIES, THE PROMISE BY AN OFFICIAL TO ACT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OWN DUTY IS NOT
VALID CONSIDERATION. AS FOR CONTRACTUAL DUTIES, THE PROMISE TO PERFORM A PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
DUTY IS NOT CONSIDERATION.

HARTLEY V PONSONBY
HELD: THE CREW WERE ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA PAYMENT PROMISED ON THE GROUNDS THAT EITHER THEY HAD
GONE BEYOND THEIR EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY OR THAT THE VOYAGE HAD BECOME TOO DANGEROUS,
FRUSTRATING THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND LEAVING THE CREW FREE TO NEGOTIATE A NEW CONTRACT.

PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING DUTY FOR PUBLIC DUTY.

GENERAL RULE: PERFORMANCE OF A PRE-EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY IS NOT A GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
COLLINS V GODEFROY (1831) 1B & AD 950

FACTS:
THE D (GODEFROY) HAD BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY AND CAUSED THE P (COLLINS), TO BE
SUBPOENAED TO ATTEND AND GIVE EVIDENCE. 
THE D WAS KEEN TO ENSURE THAT THE P ATTENDED AND SO PROMISED TO PAY HIM ONE GUINEA PER DAY WHILE
HE WAS AT COURT FOR COMPENSATION FOR HIS TIME. 
THE P ATTENDED COURT FOR SIX DAYS BUT WAS NEVER CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
THE P DEMANDED TO BE PAID OF SIX GUINEAS AS PER THE AGREEMENT BUT WAS NOT PAID. 
THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR THE SUM AMOUNT THAT HE WAS OWED.

HELD:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT WHERE THE P SHOULD ATTEND COURT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
CONSIDERATION. AS THIS WAS BECAUSE THE P WAS UNDER PUBLIC DUTY TO ATTEND COURT ANYWAY HAVING BEEN
SUBPOENAED. THE LAW WOULD NOT ALLOW SOMEONE TO RECOVER EXPENSES THAT OCCURRED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY THAT THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO DO BY LAW. 

LORD TENTERDEN SAID:

“IF IT BE A DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW UPON A PARTY REGULARLY SUBPOENAED, TO ATTEND FROM TIME TO TIME TO
GIVE HIS EVIDENCE, THEN A PROMISE TO GIVE HIM ANY REMUNERATION FOR LOSS OF TIME INCURRED IN SUCH
ATTENDANCE IS A PROMISE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. WE THINK THAT SUCH A DUTY IS IMPOSED BY LAW.’

THE RULE THAT A DUTY THAT IS IMPOSED BY LAW IS NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION WAS GENERALLY SUPPORTED ON
THE BASIS THAT IT WILL PREVENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM EXTORTING MONEY IN RETURN FOR PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR ALREADY EXISTING LEGAL DUTIES. ANOTHER WAY TO PUT IT IS ON THE BASIS THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS (E.G
POLICE) OWE A DUTY TO THE PUBLIC BY PROVIDING THEM WITH PROTECTION OR OTHER SERVICES WITHOUT THE
NEED FOR PAYMENT. 

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE 

IN COLLINS V GODFREY THE BASIC RULE APPLIED WAS THAT WHEN A PARTY DOES SOMETHING BY WHICH HE IS
ALREADY LEGALLY BOUND TO DO,IT CAN'T BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO AMOUNT TO GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
THE FIRST MAJOR EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE WAS IDENTIFIED IN GLASBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN COUNTY
COUNCIL,WHERE IT WILL BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION WHEN WHAT IS GIVEN IS
MORE THAN REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY 
,SO SOMETHING EXTRA IS ADDED TO WHAT THE CLAIMANT IS ALREADY BOUND TO DO. THE EXTRA ELEMENT IS THE
CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEW PROMISE. THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES WHERE A PERFORMANCE EXCEEDS A PUBLIC DUTY
AS SEEN IN THE CASE OF GLASSBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN CC 

GLASSBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN CC [1925] AC 270

FACTS:
THE DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF A COLLIERY WHO ASKED THE POLICE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION DURING A
MINER'S STRIKE IN THE FORM OF A BODY OF OFFICERS STATIONED ON THE PREMISES

THE POLICE THOUGHT THAT A MOBILE PATROL WAS SUFFICIENT, WHILE THE COLLIERY MANAGER WANTED
STATIONARY GUARDS .IT WAS FINALLY AGREED THAT THE POLICE WOULD PROVIDE THE REQUESTED SERVICE FOR A
PAYMENT OF £2,200.

THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO PAY,ARGUING THAT THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE PROVISION OF
PROTECTION WAS A PUBLIC DUTY AND THAT THE POLICE WERE MERELY DOING WHAT THEY WERE BOUND TO DO
ANYWAY

ISSUE
WHETHER THE POLICE AUTHORITY HAD PROVIDED CONSIDERATION FOR GLASBROOK BROS' PROMISE TO PAY.

HELD
THE LORDS BY A MAJORITY OF 3:2 HELD THAT THE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID.THE POLICE PROVIDED
ADDITIONAL OFFICERS THAN REQUIRED,THEREFORE THE POLICE HAD GONE BEYOND THEIR EXISTING DUTY AND IN
DOING SO THEY PROVIDED GOOD CONSIDERATION. MR. JUSTICE BAILHACHE IN HIS JUDGMENT SAID :—
"THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE POLICE TO AFFORD EFFICIENT PROTECTION, BUT IF AN INDIVIDUAL ASKS FOR
SPECIAL PROTECTION IN A PARTICULAR FORM, FOR THE SPECIAL PROTECTION SO ASKED FOR IN THAT PARTICULAR
FORM, THE INDIVIDUAL MUST PAY."
CONTRACTUAL DUTY :

WRN LTD V AYRIS [2008]

FACTS
D WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT C’S COMPANY
HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONTAINED POST TERMINATION RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS PRESCRIBING THAT WHICH
SHOULD BE DONE, OR NOT DONE, PRINCIPALLY FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS POST TERMINATION
D RESIGNED AND ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT (THE LEAVING CONTRACT) WITH C
LEAVING CONTRACT CONTAINED THE SAME RESTRICTIVE TERM AS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
D STARTED WORKING WITH C’S COMPETITOR
C APPLIED FOR AN INJUNCTION REQUIRING D TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS

ISSUE
D ARGUED THAT SINCE THE LEAVING CONTRACT WAS UNSUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION , IT HAD NOT GIVEN RISE
TO OBLIGATIONS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST HIM.

JUDGEMENT
THE ONLY CONSIDERATION PASSING FROM THE CLAIMANT, WHICH COULD BE SAID TO SUPPORT THE LEAVING
CONTRACT, WAS A PROMISE TO PERFORM AN EXISTING CONTRACT
 IT WAS WELL-ESTABLISHED IN LAW THAT SUCH WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE CONSIDERATION
CLAIM FOR INJUNCTION FAILED
HENCE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PERFORMANCE OF PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY IS NOT A GOOD CONSIDERATION IS
STILL APPLICABLE.

CONCLUSION : 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CONSIDERATION HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE CRITICISMS OF IT BEING REPLACEABLE BY
OTHER DOCTRINES. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSIDERATION ON ITS OWN IS STILL
REGARDED TO BE IMPORTANT TODAY .IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE RECENT CASES, LEEDS
UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE AND WRN LTD V AYRIS  THAT THE
PRINCIPAL STATING THAT PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY AND CONTRACTUAL DUTY IS NOT GOOD
CONSIDERATION STILL HOLDS TRUE.

1. PERFORMANCE OF AN EXISTING LEGAL DUTY, WHETHER A PUBLIC DUTY OR A CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO THE
PROMISOR, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO GOOD CONSIDERATION. DISCUSS, WITH REFERENCE TO DECIDED CASES, TO
WHAT EXTENT DOES THIS VIEW HOLD TRUE TODAY.

INTRODUCTION
ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSIDERATION IS THAT A PROMISE TO PERFORM OR THE PERFORMANCE OF A PRE-
EXISTING DUTY, WHETHER PUBLIC OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY IS NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
PUBLIC DUTY - DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW OF A PUBLIC OFFICER TOWARDS THE GENERAL PUBLIC
CONTRACTUAL DUTY - DUTIES THAT EACH PARTY IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IN A CONTRACT AGREEMENT
IN TERMS OF PUBLIC DUTIES, THE PROMISE BY AN OFFICIAL TO ACT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OWN DUTY IS NOT
VALID CONSIDERATION. AS FOR CONTRACTUAL DUTIES, THE PROMISE TO PERFORM A PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
DUTY IS NOT CONSIDERATION.

PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING DUTY FOR CONTRACTUAL DUTY.

GENERAL RULE: PERFORMANCE OF AN EXISTING DUTY BY CONTRACT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT
CONSIDERATION
STILK V MYRICK [1809] 2 CAMP 318
FACTS: 
THE P (STILK) WAS A SAILOR ON A VOYAGE FROM LONDON TO THE BALTIC AND BACK
HE WAS TO BE PAID £5 PER MONTH
DURING THE VOYAGE 2 OF THE 12 CREW DESERTED AND THE CAPTAIN WAS UNABLE TO FIND REPLACEMENT
HE THEN PROMISED TO PAY THE REMAINDER OF THE CREW MORE THAN ORIGINALLY AGREED 
HE DID NOT PAY AND P SUED HIM TO RECOVER THE EXTRA PAYMENT PROMISED
HELD: 
THE CAPTAIN’S PROMISE TO PAY MORE TO THE OTHER SAILORS WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
CONSIDERATION ON THE PART OF THE SAILORS
THE SAILORS HAD ONLY DONE WHAT WAS CONTRACTUALLY AGREED 
THE DISSERTATION OF THE 2 SAILORS OF A SHIP WAS SEEN TO BE A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE SAILORS DID
NOT DO ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS CONTRACTUALLY AGREED. 
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: THE AGREEMENT IS VOID FOR WANT OF CONSIDERATION

IT IS MENTIONABLE THAT BOTH ESPINASSE (PUBLIC POLICY) AND CAMPBELL(CONSIDERATION) HAD REPORTED THIS
CASE BUT IN DIFFERENT VIEWS. 
ESPINASSE: BASED THE DECISION ON THE GROUNDS THAT PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD PREVENT SEAMEN FROM
DEMANDING EXTRA PAYMENT FOR DUTIES THAT THEY WERE ALREADY OBLIGATED TO DO.
CAMPBELL: LACK OF CONSIDERATION IS THE REASON FOR THE DECISION AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO DURESS.

HARTLEY V PONSONBY
HELD: THE CREW WERE ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA PAYMENT PROMISED ON THE GROUNDS THAT EITHER THEY HAD
GONE BEYOND THEIR EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY OR THAT THE VOYAGE HAD BECOME TOO DANGEROUS,
FRUSTRATING THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND LEAVING THE CREW FREE TO NEGOTIATE A NEW CONTRACT.

PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING DUTY FOR PUBLIC DUTY.

GENERAL RULE: PERFORMANCE OF A PRE-EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY IS NOT A GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
COLLINS V GODEFROY (1831) 1B & AD 950

FACTS:
THE D (GODEFROY) HAD BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY AND CAUSED THE P (COLLINS), TO BE
SUBPOENAED TO ATTEND AND GIVE EVIDENCE. 
THE D WAS KEEN TO ENSURE THAT THE P ATTENDED AND SO PROMISED TO PAY HIM ONE GUINEA PER DAY WHILE
HE WAS AT COURT FOR COMPENSATION FOR HIS TIME. 
THE P ATTENDED COURT FOR SIX DAYS BUT WAS NEVER CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
THE P DEMANDED TO BE PAID OF SIX GUINEAS AS PER THE AGREEMENT BUT WAS NOT PAID. 
THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR THE SUM AMOUNT THAT HE WAS OWED.

HELD:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT WHERE THE P SHOULD ATTEND COURT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
CONSIDERATION. AS THIS WAS BECAUSE THE P WAS UNDER PUBLIC DUTY TO ATTEND COURT ANYWAY HAVING BEEN
SUBPOENAED. THE LAW WOULD NOT ALLOW SOMEONE TO RECOVER EXPENSES THAT OCCURRED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY THAT THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO DO BY LAW. 

LORD TENTERDEN SAID:

“IF IT BE A DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW UPON A PARTY REGULARLY SUBPOENAED, TO ATTEND FROM TIME TO TIME TO
GIVE HIS EVIDENCE, THEN A PROMISE TO GIVE HIM ANY REMUNERATION FOR LOSS OF TIME INCURRED IN SUCH
ATTENDANCE IS A PROMISE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. WE THINK THAT SUCH A DUTY IS IMPOSED BY LAW.’

THE RULE THAT A DUTY THAT IS IMPOSED BY LAW IS NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION WAS GENERALLY SUPPORTED ON
THE BASIS THAT IT WILL PREVENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM EXTORTING MONEY IN RETURN FOR PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR ALREADY EXISTING LEGAL DUTIES. ANOTHER WAY TO PUT IT IS ON THE BASIS THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS (E.G
POLICE) OWE A DUTY TO THE PUBLIC BY PROVIDING THEM WITH PROTECTION OR OTHER SERVICES WITHOUT THE
NEED FOR PAYMENT. 

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE 

IN COLLINS V GODFREY THE BASIC RULE APPLIED WAS THAT WHEN A PARTY DOES SOMETHING BY WHICH HE IS
ALREADY LEGALLY BOUND TO DO,IT CAN'T BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO AMOUNT TO GOOD CONSIDERATION. 
THE FIRST MAJOR EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE WAS IDENTIFIED IN GLASBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN COUNTY
COUNCIL,WHERE IT WILL BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION WHEN WHAT IS GIVEN IS
MORE THAN REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY 
,SO SOMETHING EXTRA IS ADDED TO WHAT THE CLAIMANT IS ALREADY BOUND TO DO. THE EXTRA ELEMENT IS THE
CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEW PROMISE. THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES WHERE A PERFORMANCE EXCEEDS A PUBLIC DUTY
AS SEEN IN THE CASE OF GLASSBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN CC 

GLASSBROOK BROS V GLAMORGAN CC [1925] AC 270

FACTS:
THE DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF A COLLIERY WHO ASKED THE POLICE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION DURING A
MINER'S STRIKE IN THE FORM OF A BODY OF OFFICERS STATIONED ON THE PREMISES

THE POLICE THOUGHT THAT A MOBILE PATROL WAS SUFFICIENT, WHILE THE COLLIERY MANAGER WANTED
STATIONARY GUARDS .IT WAS FINALLY AGREED THAT THE POLICE WOULD PROVIDE THE REQUESTED SERVICE FOR A
PAYMENT OF £2,200.
THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO PAY,ARGUING THAT THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE PROVISION OF
PROTECTION WAS A PUBLIC DUTY AND THAT THE POLICE WERE MERELY DOING WHAT THEY WERE BOUND TO DO
ANYWAY

ISSUE
WHETHER THE POLICE AUTHORITY HAD PROVIDED CONSIDERATION FOR GLASBROOK BROS' PROMISE TO PAY.

HELD
THE LORDS BY A MAJORITY OF 3:2 HELD THAT THE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID.THE POLICE PROVIDED
ADDITIONAL OFFICERS THAN REQUIRED,THEREFORE THE POLICE HAD GONE BEYOND THEIR EXISTING DUTY AND IN
DOING SO THEY PROVIDED GOOD CONSIDERATION. MR. JUSTICE BAILHACHE IN HIS JUDGMENT SAID :—
"THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE POLICE TO AFFORD EFFICIENT PROTECTION, BUT IF AN INDIVIDUAL ASKS FOR
SPECIAL PROTECTION IN A PARTICULAR FORM, FOR THE SPECIAL PROTECTION SO ASKED FOR IN THAT PARTICULAR
FORM, THE INDIVIDUAL MUST PAY."

CONTRACTUAL DUTY :