419:. The Roffey Brothers entered into a contract to refurbish a block of flats for a fixed price of £20,000. They sub-contracted carpentry work to Williams. It became apparent that Williams was threatened by financial difficulties and would not be able to complete his work on time. This would have breached a term in the main contract, incurring a penalty. Roffey Brothers offered to pay Williams an additional £575 for each flat completed. Williams continued to work on this basis, but soon it became apparent that Roffey Brothers were not going to pay the additional money. He ceased work and sued Roffey Brothers for the extra money, for the eight flats he had completed after the promise of additional payment. The Court of Appeal held that Roffey Brothers must pay Williams the extra money, as they had enjoyed practical benefits from the promise they had made to Williams. The benefits they received from it include: Having the work completed on time, not having to spend money and time seeking another carpenter and not having to pay the penalty. In the circumstances, these benefits were sufficient to provide consideration for the promise made to Williams of additional payment. It now seems that the performance of an existing duty may constitute consideration for a new promise, in the circumstances where no duress or fraud are found and where the practical benefits are to the promisor. The performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not good consideration for a fresh promise given by the promisor. However, performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, see further below.
333:, John Tweddle promised William Guy that he would pay a sum of money to the child of William Guy, and likewise William Guy promised John Tweddle that he would pay a sum of money to the child of John Tweddle, upon the marriage of the two children to each other. However, William Guy failed to pay the son of John Tweddle, who then sued his executors for the amount promised. It was held that the son could not enforce the promise made to his father, as he himself had not actually given consideration for it - it was his father who had done so instead. The son didn't receive any consideration, so he cannot enforce the promise. This particular rule of consideration forms the basis of the doctrine of
1948:
164:: Bluett, when sued by his father's executors for an outstanding debt to his father, claimed that his father had promised to discharge him from it in return for him stopping complaining about property distribution. The Court held that the cessation of complaints was of no economic value; thus, Bluett's father had received no real consideration for the promise, and the debt was enforceable at law.
265:, Roscorla had contracted to buy a horse from Thomas for £30. After the sale, Thomas promised Roscorla that the horse was sound; the horse turned out to be vicious. It was held that Roscorla could not enforce the promise, as the consideration given for entering into the contract to buy the horse had been completed by the time the promise was made; in a sense, the consideration was "used up".
537:, Cayley Shadwell was under a contractual duty with a third party to marry. His uncle, Charles Shadwell promised to pay him £150 per year after he was married. It was held that Cayley Shadwell marrying was good consideration, notwithstanding that he was obliged by a contract with a third party to marry in any event.
383:
and back for £5 per month. During the voyage, two men deserted. Myrick promised he would increase Stilk's wages if Stilk agreed to honour his contract in light of the desertions. Stilk agreed and on return to port, Myrick refused to pay him the extra wages. It was held that Myrick's fresh promise was
695:
The importance of consideration is as a valuable signal that the parties intend to be bound by their agreement, rather than an end in itself. Where the parties who have already made such intention clear by entering legal relations have acted upon an agreement to a variation, in the absence of policy
251:
the guardian of a young girl raised a loan to educate the girl and to improve her marriage prospects. After her marriage, her husband promised to pay off the loan. It was held that the guardian could not enforce the promise as taking out the loan to raise and educate the girl was past consideration,
372:
Promising to perform a pre-existing duty owed to one's contracting party also fails to make good consideration. However this rule has been considerably narrowed by recent case law. The general rule is that if a creditor promises to discharge a debt in return for a fraction of payment, in paying the
344:
The offeree must provide consideration, although the consideration does not have to flow to the offeror. For example, it is good consideration for person A to pay person C in return for services rendered by person B. If there are joint promisees, then consideration need only to move from one of the
368:
a mother was under a statutory duty to look after her child. The ex-husband promised to pay her £1 a week if she ensured that the child was well looked after and happy. It was held that notwithstanding the statutory duty imposed on the mother, she could enforce the promise since the act of keeping
255:
Furthermore, where a contract exists between two parties and one party, subsequent to formation, promises to confer an additional benefit on the other party to the contract, that promise is not binding because the promisee's consideration, which is his entry into the original contract, had already
682:
I understand that if there is no consideration for a promise, it may be a promise in honour, or a nudum pactum; but if anything else is meant, I do not understand it. I do not understand what a bargain or a promise or an agreement in honour is unless it is one on which an action cannot be brought
214:
Consideration must have some value, even if it is only slight value, in order to be good consideration. It is not necessary for the consideration to be equivalent to the initial promise in terms of value. Nominal consideration will suffice as good consideration for a contract, Courts will not
241:
A promise cannot be based upon consideration that was said, given or done before the promise was performed. Something said afterwards, will not count as consideration. For example, if X promises to reward Y for an act that Y had already performed then while the performance of that act is good
297:
There must be some kind of connection between a promise and the consideration offered to support the promise. It is no consideration to "refrain from a course of conduct which it was never intended to pursue". The consideration must have been at least an inducement to enter into the promise.
186:
The general rule is that an executory agreement, by which the plaintiff agrees to do something on the terms that the defendant agrees to do something else, may be enforced if what the plaintiff has agreed to do is either for the benefit of the defendant or to the trouble or prejudice of the
341:.) Therefore, consideration from the promisee was indulgent of the claim. Although consideration must move from the promisee, it does not necessarily have to move to the promisor. The promisee may provide consideration to a third party, if this is agreed at the time the parties contracted.
373:
agreed fraction, the promisee is not providing consideration for the promise, as this is merely part performance of a contractual duty already owed. Consequently, the debtor is still liable for the whole amount, as he cannot force the promisor to accept less. A leading example is in
422:
According to the Court of Appeal, it is unlikely that either avoiding a breach of contract with a third party, avoiding the trouble and expense of engaging a third party to carry out work or avoiding a penalty clause in a third party contract will be a "practical benefit". In
120:"Past consideration is no consideration": consideration must be "executory" or "executed", but not "past"; that is, consideration must be supplied in the present or in the future, but things done beforehand cannot be good consideration.
478:, cannot be used as an additional exception to the rule. In that case, it was held that the doctrine only applies where the original promise was a promise to pay extra and not to pay less. The Court of Appeal in
456:
Another exception is that part payment of the debt by a third party as consideration for a promise to discharge the creditor from the full sum, prevents the creditor then suing the debtor for full payment (see
230:
A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisor does not like pepper and will throw away the
384:
not enforceable as the consideration Stilk had provided for it, the performance of a duty he already owed to Myrick under contract, was not good consideration for Myrick's promise to increase his wages.
683:
because it is nudum pactum. In my judgment, this first point fails, and this was an offer intended to be acted upon, and, when acted upon and the conditions performed, constituted a promise to pay
69:
to support their side of the bargain. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a "bare promise" and is unenforceable.
1381:
566:
1226:
415:
359:
Godefrey promised to pay
Collins for his giving of evidence. It was held that Collins could not enforce the promise as he was under a statutory duty to give evidence in any event.
521:
could be applied to decreasing pacts or agreements to accept less. Arden LJ and
Kitchin LJ both endorsed this approach indicating that part payment along with practical benefit
923:
193:
652:
288:
The actual promise made, if made before the promisee provided the consideration, must be capable of being enforced, in other words giving rise to a legally binding contract.
353:
If the promisee provides what he was required by public law to do in any event in return for a promise, promised performance of existing duty is not good consideration. In
1363:
545:
203:
An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.
452:
If the promisee pays the debt in part by another chattel (note, however, that part payment by cheque, where full payment was due by another means, is not consideration.)
337:
of a contract, that is, only a party to a contract is permitted to sue upon that contract's terms. (Note that the doctrine of privity has been somewhat altered by the
174:... some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.
1658:
404:
before the fresh promise was made, circumstances had arisen which would have entitled the promisee to refuse to carry out his obligations under his contract.
338:
117:
that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promisee. Forbearance to act amounts to consideration only if one is thereby surrendering a legal right.
540:
A promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty owed to a third party (as opposed to the performance of that duty) may also amount to consideration.
1696:
327:
A promise is enforceable if it is supported by consideration, that is, where consideration has moved from the promisee. For example, in the case of
1467:
622:
1449:
614:
1869:
1729:
1724:
1524:
1982:
1769:
1744:
525:
be enough to support a promise to accept less. The decision has been criticised as extending the practical benefit test beyond its limits.
497:
950:
224:
665:
425:
1892:
1651:
198:
449:
If the promisee offers part payment at a different place than where full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; or,
2033:
1897:
1701:
429:, the practical benefit was held to be the avoiding of a breach of contract, which was clearly not an extension of the principle.
1805:
1800:
1716:
676:
1836:
1810:
156:. was a case where £1 was seen to be good consideration for a widow to continue to live in her house after her husband's death.
1112:
1967:
1820:
1622:
500:
decision). It therefore remains to be seen whether the House of Lords would decide this point differently. In any event, the
1024:
285:
It was clearly understood or implied between the parties that the promisee would be rewarded for the performance of the act;
2131:
1977:
1644:
1489:
630:
20:
1734:
1606:
1602:
1399:
1279:
574:
1992:
533:
Consideration for a promise can be the performance of a contractual duty owed to someone other than the promisor. In
215:
measure the adequacy of the consideration as it is up to the parties to decide the subjective worth of each promise.
1563:. "From Sailors to Fisherman: Contractual Variation and the Abolition of the Pre-Existing Duty Rule in New Zealand".
1542:
689:
125:
1962:
1815:
1507:
638:
803:
2008:
1972:
1937:
1862:
1774:
1319:
1041:
362:
However, if the promisee provides more than what public duty imposes on him, then this is good consideration. In
308:
242:
consideration, for the promise to be rewarded for it is past consideration and therefore not good consideration.
1028:
2063:
1751:
1681:
1476:
55:
1246:
582:
446:
If the promisee offers part payment earlier than full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor;
172:
Lush J. referred to consideration as consisting of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor: "
2013:
1795:
1691:
559:
1511:
1917:
1706:
334:
322:
1045:
669:
432:
This is true unless the debtor provided fresh consideration for the promise. The following, mentioned in
1568:
1193:
1076:
1006:
910:
890:
355:
274:
268:
The rule that past consideration is not good consideration is subject to the exception discussed by the
968:
247:
873:
2102:
1922:
1907:
1902:
1855:
1779:
1667:
1417:
1189:
906:
852:
711:
590:
438:
392:
180:
152:
39:
1259:
1337:
838:
730:
e.g. I promise you that I will do X, in consideration for which you promise me that you will do Y".
505:
140:
1094:
396:, the promisee has done, or has promised to do, more than he was obliged to do under his contract.
364:
2053:
1987:
1761:
1206:
1058:
400:
329:
145:
1324:
1927:
1618:
1302:
985:
820:
606:
466:
278:. In that case, their Lordships held that past consideration can be good consideration where:
261:
2058:
2043:
2028:
1912:
1739:
1350:
1133:
19:
This article is about consideration under
English law. For an American focused article, see
1586:
2068:
1932:
1581:
1472:
43:
513:
1611:
1171:
869:
489:
375:
219:
160:
132:
1454:
1263:
1210:
1137:
856:
2125:
2038:
1431:
1342:
1176:
1153:
1081:
1063:
990:
972:
886:
825:
743:
598:
484:
312:, forbearance to sue in a groundless action still good consideration; honest mistake.
269:
168:
51:
1011:
2078:
2048:
1547:
1529:
1494:
1436:
1404:
1386:
1368:
1307:
1284:
1231:
1161:, 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (16 May 1884)
1158:
1117:
1099:
955:
928:
501:
66:
1947:
2088:
2083:
1878:
1560:
32:
61:
Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money, services, or
2109:
2073:
380:
35:
2023:
2018:
1636:
642:
a person can be estopped from denying what he said in a representation.
282:
The promisee performed the original act at the request of the promisor;
804:
Agreement, Mistake, and
Objectivity in the Bargain Theory of Conflict
54:
has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the
379:
where Stilk, a seaman, agreed with Myrick to sail his boat to the
252:
because it was completed before the husband promised to repay it.
144:
was an early case on the doctrine of consideration, concerning an
16:
Something of value promised by parties to a contract to each other
1605:(1986). "Origins of the Doctrine of Consideration 1535-1585". In
696:
reasons to the contrary, they should be bound by their agreement.
256:
been completed (or "used") at the time the next promise is made.
148:
where the plaintiff recovered damages for the loss of a bargain.
47:
1851:
1640:
1847:
413:
However, the strictness of this rule was severely limited in
1321:
Atlas
Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers & Distributors) Ltd
81:, consideration for a particular promise exists where some
1613:
The Legal
Profession and the Common Law: Historical Essays
1382:
Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
1001:
999:
567:
Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
387:
Initially, there were only two exceptions to this rule:
1227:
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
416:
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
924:
Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
194:
Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
1221:
1219:
1217:
369:
the baby 'happy' provided additional consideration.
2001:
1955:
1885:
1829:
1788:
1760:
1715:
1674:
1364:
NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
1274:
1272:
653:
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
546:
NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
1610:
1244:Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery Ltd
1266:; 153 ER 745; (1846) 15 M & W 23; 15 LJEx 318
426:Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB
1148:
1146:
701:UNIDROIT Principles (2004) Article 2.1.2 and 3.2
1128:
1126:
65:of any of these), which each party gives as a
1863:
1652:
1297:
1295:
1293:
842:(1561) KB 27/1026, m. 76; 94 Seldon Soc. 268.
101:) to the promisor as a direct result of some
8:
339:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
893:at p. 162 ;(1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554.
1870:
1856:
1848:
1659:
1645:
1637:
901:
899:
1450:Collier v P&MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd
1113:Glasbrook Ltd v Glamorgan County Council
615:Collier v P&MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd
197:: Lord Dunedin quotes the definition of
1468:Waltons Stores (Interstate Ltd) v Maher
759:
723:
623:Waltons Stores (Interstate Ltd) v Maher
1577:
1566:
1211:; 119 ER 1471; (1857) 7 E & B 872.
1084:, (1831) 1B & Ad 951; 109 ER 1040.
1025:Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd
975:, 11 Ad & E 438, 113 Eng Rep 482.
1525:Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
951:Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
940:Pollock on Contracts, 8th ed., p. 175
442:, may amount to fresh consideration:
225:Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
7:
511:The Court of Appeal in June 2016 in
508:may provide the debtor with relief.
1587:(2005) 11 Canterbury Law Review 201
1066:, (1861) 1 B&S 393; 121 ER 762.
666:Principles of European Contract Law
517:revisited the issue of whether the
46:(but not for special contracts by
14:
1946:
1179:, (1809) 2 Camp 317; 170 ER 851.
677:Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
529:Existing duties to third parties
1351:(1935-1938) 1 Res Judicatae 339
1543:Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith
690:Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith
228:(1959), Lord Somervell said: "
126:ex nudo pacto actio non oritur
1:
1740:Good faith & fair dealing
1508:Avon County Council v Howlett
1490:Crabb v Arun District Council
1280:D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
808:William & Mary Law Review
639:Avon County Council v Howlett
631:Crabb v Arun District Council
492:decision), in order to apply
21:Consideration in American law
1400:Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co
575:Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co
1993:Courts of England and Wales
1697:Creation of legal relations
1617:. London: Hambledon Press.
482:were unable to distinguish
2148:
1371:, AC 154; 1 All ER 1015.
1345:, 142 ER 62; confirmed by
663:
557:
519:practical benefit doctrine
472:practical benefit doctrine
320:
18:
2097:
1944:
1234:, 1 QB 1; 1 All ER 512.
1042:Callisher v Bischoffsheim
583:D & C Builders v Rees
309:Callisher v Bischoffsheim
136:(1414) 2 Hen. 5, 5 Pl. 26
42:, and is a necessity for
1789:Setting aside a contract
1455:[2007] EWCA 1329
1287:, 2 QB 617, 2 WLR 288.
931: at p. 855, AC 847.
464:The Court of Appeal, in
1548:[2002] NZCA 331
1343:[1860] EWCA J88
1247:(1998) 2 Lloyds Rep 428
1177:[1809] EWHC J58
1082:[1831] EWHC J18
1064:[1861] EWHC J57
1029:(1976) 1 Lloyd's Rep 98
991:[1842] EWHC J74
826:[1842] EWHC J74
560:Estoppel in English law
2034:British Virgin Islands
1730:Interpreting contracts
1725:Incorporation of terms
1576:Cite journal requires
1407:, (1877) 2 App Cas 439
1012:[1979] UKPC 17
514:MWB v Rock Advertising
323:Privity in English law
293:Illusory consideration
1745:Unfair contract terms
1530:[1892] EWCA 1
1495:[1975] EWCA 7
1473:[1988] HCA 7
1437:[1952] EWCA 7
1405:[1877] UKHL 1
1387:[1946] EWHC 1
1369:[1974] UKPC 1
1308:[1993] EWCA 8
1285:[1965] EWCA 3
1232:[1989] EWCA 5
1159:[1884] UKHL 1
1118:[1924] UKHL 3
1100:[1956] EWCA 1
1007:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
956:[1959] UKHL 1
929:[1915] UKHL 1
275:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
199:Sir Frederick Pollock
2132:English contract law
1780:Specific performance
1668:English contract law
1512:(1983) 1 All ER 1073
1418:Ogilvy v Hope Davies
802:Bronaugh R. (1976).
769:(1875) LR 10 Ex 893
712:English contract law
591:Ogilvy v Hope Davies
1801:Iniquitous pressure
1692:Promissory estoppel
1338:Shadwell v Shadwell
1140:; 5 Co. Rep. 117a.
891:(1875) LR 10 Ex 153
670:UNIDROIT Principles
647:Deeds and formality
535:Shadwell v Shadwell
506:promissory estoppel
502:equitable principle
436:, and confirmed by
349:Pre-existing duties
38:concept within the
1898:Administrative law
1770:Measure of damages
1762:Breach of contract
1207:Hartley v Ponsonby
1077:Collins v Godefroy
1059:Tweddle v Atkinson
1046:(1870) LR 5 QB 449
993:, (1842) 3 QB 234.
874:(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
859:; (1842) 2 QB 851.
693:, Baragwanath J, "
470:, stated that the
401:Hartley v Ponsonby
356:Collins v Godefrey
330:Tweddle v Atkinson
146:executory contract
50:). The concept of
2119:
2118:
1845:
1844:
1806:Misrepresentation
1717:Contractual terms
1303:Re Selectmove Ltd
1194:(1867) LR 3 CP 47
986:Roscorla v Thomas
969:Eastwood v Kenyon
911:(1873) LR 9 QB 55
828:, (1842) 3 QB 234
821:Roscorla v Thomas
742:was confirmed by
607:Re Selectmove Ltd
494:Williams v Roffey
476:Williams v Roffey
467:Re Selectmove Ltd
302:Forbearing to sue
262:Roscorla v Thomas
248:Eastwood v Kenyon
2139:
2014:Northern Ireland
1956:Further subjects
1950:
1872:
1865:
1858:
1849:
1661:
1654:
1647:
1638:
1628:
1616:
1590:
1585:
1579:
1574:
1572:
1564:
1557:
1551:
1539:
1533:
1521:
1515:
1504:
1498:
1486:
1480:
1464:
1458:
1446:
1440:
1428:
1422:
1414:
1408:
1396:
1390:
1378:
1372:
1360:
1354:
1334:
1328:
1317:
1311:
1299:
1288:
1276:
1267:
1256:
1250:
1241:
1235:
1223:
1212:
1203:
1197:
1186:
1180:
1168:
1162:
1150:
1141:
1138:(1602) 77 ER 237
1130:
1121:
1109:
1103:
1091:
1085:
1073:
1067:
1055:
1049:
1038:
1032:
1021:
1015:
1003:
994:
982:
976:
965:
959:
947:
941:
938:
932:
920:
914:
903:
894:
883:
877:
866:
860:
849:
843:
835:
829:
817:
811:
800:
794:
788:
782:
781:(1846) 2 CB 548
776:
770:
764:
748:
737:
731:
728:
409:Factual benefits
44:simple contracts
2147:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2115:
2093:
2069:Anglo-Saxon law
2002:Related systems
1997:
1983:Civil procedure
1968:Competition law
1951:
1942:
1933:Retained EU law
1893:UK Constitution
1881:
1876:
1846:
1841:
1825:
1821:Undue influence
1784:
1756:
1711:
1670:
1665:
1635:
1625:
1601:
1598:
1596:Further reading
1593:
1575:
1565:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1540:
1536:
1522:
1518:
1505:
1501:
1487:
1483:
1465:
1461:
1447:
1443:
1429:
1425:
1415:
1411:
1397:
1393:
1379:
1375:
1361:
1357:
1335:
1331:
1318:
1314:
1300:
1291:
1277:
1270:
1264:(1846) EngR 269
1257:
1253:
1242:
1238:
1224:
1215:
1204:
1200:
1190:Hanson v Royden
1187:
1183:
1169:
1165:
1151:
1144:
1131:
1124:
1110:
1106:
1092:
1088:
1074:
1070:
1056:
1052:
1039:
1035:
1022:
1018:
1004:
997:
983:
979:
966:
962:
948:
944:
939:
935:
921:
917:
907:Bolton v Madden
904:
897:
884:
880:
867:
863:
857:(1842) EngR 260
853:Thomas v Thomas
850:
846:
836:
832:
818:
814:
801:
797:
793:(1853) 2 WR 75
789:
785:
777:
773:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
738:
734:
729:
725:
720:
708:
672:
662:
649:
562:
556:
531:
498:Court of Appeal
474:, arising from
439:Sibree v. Tripp
411:
393:Hanson v Royden
351:
325:
319:
304:
295:
239:
218:In the British
212:
181:Bolton v Madden
153:Thomas v Thomas
75:
40:law of contract
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2145:
2143:
2135:
2134:
2124:
2123:
2117:
2116:
2114:
2113:
2106:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2092:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2066:
2061:
2056:
2051:
2046:
2041:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2021:
2016:
2011:
2005:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1996:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1980:
1978:Commercial law
1975:
1970:
1965:
1959:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1945:
1943:
1941:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1910:
1905:
1900:
1895:
1889:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1877:
1875:
1874:
1867:
1860:
1852:
1843:
1842:
1840:
1839:
1833:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1824:
1823:
1818:
1813:
1808:
1803:
1798:
1792:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1783:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1766:
1764:
1758:
1757:
1755:
1754:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1742:
1732:
1727:
1721:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1710:
1709:
1704:
1699:
1694:
1689:
1684:
1678:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1656:
1649:
1641:
1634:
1633:External links
1631:
1630:
1629:
1623:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1591:
1578:|journal=
1561:Scott, Karen N
1552:
1534:
1516:
1499:
1481:
1459:
1441:
1423:
1409:
1391:
1373:
1355:
1347:The Eurymedon
1329:
1312:
1289:
1268:
1260:Sibree v Tripp
1251:
1236:
1213:
1198:
1181:
1172:Stilk v Myrick
1163:
1142:
1122:
1104:
1086:
1068:
1050:
1033:
1016:
995:
977:
973:(1840) EngR 90
960:
942:
933:
915:
895:
878:
870:White v Bluett
861:
844:
830:
812:
795:
791:White v Bluett
783:
771:
758:
756:
753:
750:
749:
732:
722:
721:
719:
716:
715:
714:
707:
704:
703:
702:
699:
686:
661:
658:
657:
656:
655:(UK) section 1
648:
645:
644:
643:
635:
627:
619:
611:
603:
595:
587:
579:
571:
558:Main article:
555:
552:
551:
550:
530:
527:
490:House of Lords
454:
453:
450:
447:
410:
407:
406:
405:
397:
376:Stilk v Myrick
350:
347:
318:
315:
314:
313:
303:
300:
294:
291:
290:
289:
286:
283:
238:
235:
220:House of Lords
211:
208:
207:
206:
190:
184:Blackburn J, "
177:
165:
161:White v Bluett
157:
149:
137:
129:
115:responsibility
99:or will accrue
74:
71:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2144:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2127:
2112:
2111:
2107:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2064:United States
2062:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2006:
2004:
2000:
1994:
1991:
1989:
1986:
1984:
1981:
1979:
1976:
1974:
1971:
1969:
1966:
1964:
1961:
1960:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1931:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1916:
1914:
1911:
1909:
1906:
1904:
1901:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1888:
1886:Core subjects
1884:
1880:
1873:
1868:
1866:
1861:
1859:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1838:
1835:
1834:
1832:
1828:
1822:
1819:
1817:
1814:
1812:
1809:
1807:
1804:
1802:
1799:
1797:
1794:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1765:
1763:
1759:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:Implied terms
1733:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1720:
1718:
1714:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1695:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1687:Consideration
1685:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1662:
1657:
1655:
1650:
1648:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1632:
1626:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1588:
1583:
1570:
1562:
1556:
1553:
1550:, 2 NZLR 23.
1549:
1545:
1544:
1538:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1520:
1517:
1514:; 1 WLR 603.
1513:
1510:
1509:
1503:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1475:, (1988) 164
1474:
1470:
1469:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:Combe v Combe
1427:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1349:1 All ER 122;
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1325:(1989) QB 833
1323:
1322:
1316:
1313:
1310:, 1 WLR 474.
1309:
1305:
1304:
1298:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1275:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1222:
1220:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:Foakes v Beer
1149:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1134:Pinnel's Case
1129:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1108:
1105:
1102:, 1 WLR 496.
1101:
1097:
1096:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1002:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
981:
978:
974:
971:
970:
964:
961:
957:
953:
952:
946:
943:
937:
934:
930:
926:
925:
919:
916:
912:
909:
908:
902:
900:
896:
892:
889:
888:
887:Currie v Misa
882:
879:
875:
872:
871:
865:
862:
858:
855:
854:
848:
845:
841:
840:
839:Lucy v Walwyn
834:
831:
827:
823:
822:
816:
813:
809:
805:
799:
796:
792:
787:
784:
780:
779:Wade v Simeon
775:
772:
768:
767:Currie v Misa
763:
760:
754:
747:
745:
744:Foakes v Beer
741:
740:Pinnel's Case
736:
733:
727:
724:
717:
713:
710:
709:
705:
700:
697:
692:
691:
687:
684:
680:AL Smith LJ,
679:
678:
674:
673:
671:
667:
659:
654:
651:
650:
646:
641:
640:
636:
633:
632:
628:
625:
624:
620:
617:
616:
612:
609:
608:
604:
601:
600:
599:Combe v Combe
596:
593:
592:
588:
585:
584:
580:
577:
576:
572:
569:
568:
564:
563:
561:
553:
548:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
536:
528:
526:
524:
520:
516:
515:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:Foakes v Beer
481:
480:Re Selectmove
477:
473:
469:
468:
462:
460:
459:Welby v Drake
451:
448:
445:
444:
443:
441:
440:
435:
434:Pinnel's Case
430:
428:
427:
420:
418:
417:
408:
403:
402:
398:
395:
394:
390:
389:
388:
385:
382:
378:
377:
370:
367:
366:
360:
358:
357:
348:
346:
342:
340:
336:
332:
331:
324:
316:
311:
310:
306:
305:
301:
299:
292:
287:
284:
281:
280:
279:
277:
276:
271:
270:Privy Council
266:
264:
263:
257:
253:
250:
249:
243:
236:
234:
232:
227:
226:
221:
216:
209:
204:
200:
196:
195:
191:
188:
183:
182:
178:
175:
171:
170:
169:Currie v Misa
166:
163:
162:
158:
155:
154:
150:
147:
143:
142:
141:Lucy v Walwyn
138:
135:
134:
130:
128:
127:
123:
122:
121:
118:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:Currie v Misa
77:According to
72:
70:
68:
64:
59:
57:
56:United States
53:
52:consideration
49:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
29:Consideration
26:
22:
2108:
2101:
1923:Property law
1908:Contract law
1903:Criminal law
1686:
1612:
1569:cite journal
1555:
1541:
1537:
1523:
1519:
1506:
1502:
1497:, 1 Ch 170.
1488:
1484:
1466:
1462:
1448:
1444:
1439:, 2 KB 215.
1430:
1426:
1421:1 All ER 683
1416:
1412:
1398:
1394:
1380:
1376:
1362:
1358:
1346:
1336:
1332:
1320:
1315:
1301:
1278:
1258:
1254:
1243:
1239:
1225:
1205:
1201:
1188:
1184:
1170:
1166:
1152:
1132:
1111:
1107:
1095:Ward v Byham
1093:
1089:
1075:
1071:
1057:
1053:
1040:
1036:
1023:
1019:
1005:
984:
980:
967:
963:
949:
945:
936:
922:
918:
905:
885:
881:
868:
864:
851:
847:
837:
833:
819:
815:
807:
798:
790:
786:
778:
774:
766:
762:
746:
739:
735:
726:
694:
688:
681:
675:
660:Alternatives
637:
629:
621:
613:
605:
597:
589:
581:
573:
565:
544:
539:
534:
532:
522:
518:
512:
510:
493:
483:
479:
475:
471:
465:
463:
458:
455:
437:
433:
431:
424:
421:
414:
412:
399:
391:
386:
374:
371:
365:Ward v Byham
363:
361:
354:
352:
343:
328:
326:
307:
296:
273:
267:
260:
258:
254:
246:
244:
240:
237:Past conduct
229:
223:
217:
213:
202:
192:
185:
179:
173:
167:
159:
151:
139:
131:
124:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
76:
67:quid pro quo
62:
60:
28:
27:
25:
2089:Hue and cry
2084:Bloody Code
2054:New Zealand
1963:Company law
1879:English law
1816:Frustration
1532:, 1 QB 256
345:promisees.
133:Dyer's case
103:forbearance
2074:Common law
1988:Family law
1973:Labour law
1775:Remoteness
1624:0907628621
1389:, KB 130.
1120:, AC 270.
1014:, AC 614.
755:References
664:See also:
381:Baltic Sea
321:See also:
187:plaintiff.
36:common law
2059:Singapore
2044:Hong Kong
2029:Australia
1928:Trust law
1752:Penalties
1702:Certainty
1682:Agreement
1675:Formation
1607:Baker, JH
1603:Baker, JH
958:, AC 87.
913:at p. 56.
107:detriment
97:accrues (
2126:Category
2103:Category
2019:Scotland
1938:Case law
1913:Tort law
1796:Capacity
706:See also
554:Estoppel
210:Adequacy
87:interest
63:promises
2009:UK-wide
1918:Privacy
1837:History
1811:Mistake
1707:Privity
1609:(ed.).
335:privity
317:Privity
95:benefit
33:English
2110:Portal
2079:Equity
2039:Canada
1621:
91:profit
31:is an
2049:India
2024:Wales
1830:Other
1546:
1528:
1493:
1471:
1453:
1435:
1403:
1385:
1367:
1341:
1306:
1283:
1230:
1175:
1157:
1116:
1098:
1080:
1062:
1010:
989:
954:
927:
824:
718:Notes
523:could
231:corn.
222:case
83:right
73:Value
1619:ISBN
1582:help
1479:387.
668:and
111:loss
48:deed
1477:CLR
504:of
496:(a
488:(a
461:).
272:in
259:In
245:In
201:, "
113:or
93:or
2128::
1573::
1571:}}
1567:{{
1292:^
1271:^
1216:^
1145:^
1125:^
998:^
898:^
806:.
233:"
109:,
105:,
89:,
85:,
58:.
1871:e
1864:t
1857:v
1660:e
1653:t
1646:v
1627:.
1589:.
1584:)
1580:(
1457:.
1353:.
1327:.
1249:.
1196:.
1048:.
1031:.
876:.
810:.
698:"
685:.
634:.
626:.
618:.
610:.
602:.
594:.
586:.
578:.
570:.
549:.
205:"
189:"
176:"
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.