Glasbrooke Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925)

During a strike at a colliery the manager asked for additional police protection for the colliery
and he required police officers to be stationed on the premises. The police superintendent
provided officers but refused more officers at the colliery unless the manager paid extra. The
manager agreed but later refused to pay.The issue was whether the police authority had provided
consideration for Glasbrook Bros' promise to pay. It was held that the extra protection was good
consideration for the promise by the mine owner to pay. Therefore, the contract was enforceable
and the police were entitled to the payment.

Stilk v Myrick (1890)

A return voyage between London and the Baltics when two of the crew abandoned the ship, The
captain offered the remaining crew an extra pay if they could return sail to London. The ship was
returned to London however, the additional payment was not made. The issue was whether the
remaining seamen were entitled to the extra payment promised by the captain. It was held that
since it was the seamen’s job to sail back under any circumstances, promising to sail back was
not a valid consideration. Therefore the captain did not not have to pay them extra money.

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

The defendant was captain of a ship on which the plaintiff was a sailor. While at sea, seventeen
out of the total 37 crew deserted. The ship was left in a more dangerous condition by the
reduced crew. The captain persuaded the remaining crew to sail back and promised them extra
wages. When the ship returned to the UK he refused to pay them. The plaintiff sued for breach of
contract. The issue was whether the sailors provided consideration. It was held that sailing back
was over their normal duties so they were therefore entitled to the money.

Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd (1990)

The Roffey Bros, were builders who were contracted to refurbish 27 flats belonging to a housing
corporation. The contract had a penalty clause for late completion. They subcontracted some
work to Williams, a carpenter. When Williams fell behind with his work they offered him bonus
payment to finish on time. Williams carried on working until the payments stopped. He sued
them for breach of contract. The issue was whether Williams provided consideration and if he
should get the bonus. It was held that a promise to make bonus payments to complete work on
time was enforceable if the promisor obtained a practical benefit, therefore the promise for extra
pay was enforceable.
Scotson v Pegg (1861)

Pegg purchased some coal and paid Scotson to carry and to unload the coal. Scotson was the
supplier of the coal who had also paid Pegg to carry and unload the coal. The claimant brought
an action to recover the money paid arguing the defendant was already under an existing duty to
carry and unload the coal and thus provided no consideration. The issue was if there was
consideration in the agreement between Scotson and Pegg? It was held that the claimant could
not recover the sums paid and the defendant was entitled to get paid twice for doing the same
thing. Pegg clearly received benefit from Scotson in the delivery of the coal and therefore was
bound by the contract made between them.

Pinnel’s case (1602)

The claimant was owed £8 10 shillings. The defendant paid £5 2 shillings and 2p. The claimant
sued for the amount outstanding.The claimant was entitled to the full amount even if they agreed
to accept less. Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forebear the
balance unless at the promisor's request part payment is made either:a). before the due date or b).
with a chattel or c). to a different destination.Therefore, by paying some money early the
defendant had provided the plaintiff with a further benefit and had not just repaid the money
which he already owed. Consequently, this was good consideration, and the court found for the
defendant.

Foakes v Beer (1884)

Dr Foakes owed Mrs Beer £2,000 after she had obtained judgment against him in an earlier case.
Dr Foakes offered to pay £500 immediately and the rest by instalments, Mrs Beer agreed to this
and agreed she would not seek enforcement of the payment provided he kept up the instalments.
No mention was made in this agreement of interest although judgment debts generally incurred
interest. Dr Foakes paid all the instalments as agreed and Mrs Beer then brought an action for the
interest.The issue was that if partial payment of a debt sufficient consideration for the original
contract between Foakes and Beer? It was held that Dr Foakes was liable to pay the interest.

Re Selectmove (1995)
The Inland Revenue petitioned the court for a winding-up order in respect of a company,
Selectmove, which had accrued arrears in the tax it owed under the PAYE system of tax
collection. The company appealed on the grounds that a tax collector had met with the company
and agreed that the company could pay the arrears in instalments instead of being wound up. The
issue was if there was sufficient consideration in the partial payment of the existing debt to find a
binding contract? It was held that the tax collector lacked actual authority to bind the Revenue.
Therefore, the agreement was not binding.

Hirachand Punamchand v Temple (1911)

The claimants lent money to the defendant Temple who was an army officer serving in India.
The claimants sought return of the money from the claimant but were unable to get any response
so they contacted his father. The claimants asked how much the father would be prepared to pay
to settle the son's accounts. An amount was agreed but was not the full amount due. The claimant
promised to send the promissory note relating to the son's debt to the father once they received
payment. The father paid, but the claimant retained the promissory note and sued the son to
enforce the balance. The issue was whether amount due was paid off. It was held that the
payment made by the father was sufficient to discharge the full balance.