Consideration

Currie v Misa, Lush J said that a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist
either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party for some forbearance,
detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. The concept of
consideration is based on the doctrine of reciprocity.
O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Ltd 1985.
Consideration must move from the promisee
Thomas v Thomas 1842.
Consideration must be sufficient and not necessarily adequate
Thomas v Thomas 1842 where there was a promise by a widow to buy a house and to pay an
annual, specified sum. The court found that the relevant commitment was good consideration.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
Williams v Roffey Brothers 1991.
White v Bluett 1852, where a son's promise not to complain of his father’s distribution of
property was held to be no consideration.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd.

Past consideration is not good consideration

Roscorla v Thomas 1842, there is was a promise, regarding the sale of a horse, that the said
horse was sound and free from vice. The court held that the terms ‘sound and free from vice’
were not enforceable as consideration, since they were given after the formation of the
contract in question.
Re McArdle 1951, where children were entitled to property under the father’s will. The wife
of one of the children made improvements and the other children all agreed to pay her for the
said improvements. It was held that this did not constitute good consideration since the work
done was not given in exchange of a promise.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Lampleigh v Braithwaite 1615. The courts have applied a test to determine whether it would
be right and just for this exception to apply. The test is as follows:
- was there a request to perform the act?
- can it be said that this request carries with it an implied promise to pay or
compensate? See Re McArdle, Re Casey’s Patents 1892.