In English contract law, consideration refers to something of value exchanged between parties, which is essential for forming a legally enforceable contract.
Consideration involves a benefit or detriment exchanged between contracting parties. It can include payment, services, goods, promises, or abstaining from actions a party is legally entitled to perform. For a contract to be valid, consideration must move from the promisee.
Consideration ensures mutual exchange and fairness within contractual agreements, distinguishing enforceable promises from mere gratuitous statements or gifts.
Atlas threatened to withhold deliveries unless Kafco agreed to substantially higher carriage charges, despite an existing contract. The court held the variation unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration and because Kafco’s apparent consent was obtained through economic duress.
Callisher claimed money was owed to him by the Honduras Government and agreed to forbear legal proceedings in exchange for the defendant's promise to deliver bonds. The defendant failed to deliver and argued the original claim was groundless. The court held that forbearance to pursue a bona fide disputed claim constitutes good consideration.
Nestlé offered gramophone records for 1s 6d plus three chocolate bar wrappers. The copyright owners argued this arrangement meant there was no ordinary retail selling price for calculating royalties under the Copyright Act 1956. The House of Lords held the wrappers formed part of the consideration, not merely a qualifying condition.
An attorney attended court for six days as a subpoenaed witness but was not called to give evidence. He sued for compensation for his loss of time. The court held that attendance as a witness under subpoena is a legal duty, so no action lies for compensation as there is no consideration for any promise to pay.
Wife left matrimonial home with husband's consent for a holiday but did not return. Husband petitioned for divorce claiming wife's desertion revived her previously condoned adultery. Court found husband failed to prove wife intended to desert, as he kept her short of money and showed no genuine desire for her return. Appeal dismissed.
D & C Builders, a small building company in financial difficulties, were owed £482 by Rees. His wife offered £300 in full settlement, threatening they would receive nothing otherwise. The Court of Appeal held the payment did not discharge the debt as there was no consideration and the agreement was obtained through intimidation.
A manufacturer cannot enforce a resale price agreement against a retailer when it is not a party to the contract and has provided no consideration. The case reaffirms the principle that only those directly involved in a contract can sue under it.
Esso ran a promotion giving 'free' World Cup coins to motorists buying four gallons of petrol. The issue was whether these coins were 'produced for sale' and thus subject to purchase tax. The House of Lords held the coins were gifts, not sales, as there was no intention to create legal relations regarding the coins.
Dr Foakes owed Mrs Beer £2090 19s under a judgment. They agreed he would pay in instalments without Mrs Beer taking proceedings. After full payment of principal, Mrs Beer claimed interest. The House of Lords held that payment of a lesser sum cannot satisfy a greater debt without fresh consideration.
During a coal strike, colliery owners requested police be billeted at their premises to protect safety men working the pumps. The police superintendent believed a mobile force would suffice but agreed to provide a garrison upon the owners signing a requisition promising payment. The House of Lords held that where police provide services beyond their strict obligations at a party's specific request, payment can lawfully be charged.
A mother promised her daughter maintenance to study for the Bar in England, later purchasing a house for her to live in. When the relationship broke down, the mother sought possession. The Court of Appeal held there was no legally binding contract, only a family arrangement not intended to create legal relations.
The defendant granted the plaintiffs an option to purchase his house for £10,000, receiving £1 consideration. He later attempted to withdraw but the plaintiffs exercised the option. The Court of Appeal upheld specific performance, confirming that nominal consideration supports a valid irrevocable option, and the resulting contract was enforceable.
Selectmove Ltd owed substantial PAYE and NIC arrears to the Inland Revenue. The company's director claimed an agreement was made with a tax collector to pay arrears by instalments. The Court of Appeal held there was no binding agreement due to lack of authority and consideration, reaffirming that practical benefits cannot constitute consideration for payment of existing debts under Foakes v Beer.
Plaintiffs contracted to deliver coals to third parties, who sold them to the defendant. The defendant promised to unload at a certain rate in exchange for delivery. The court held that delivery to the defendant was good consideration for his promise, despite the plaintiffs' pre-existing contractual duty to third parties.
A nephew sued his uncle's executors for unpaid annuity instalments promised by the uncle upon hearing of the nephew's intended marriage. The court held that marriage, induced by the uncle's promise, constituted valid consideration despite the nephew being already engaged, as it involved detriment to the nephew and benefit to the uncle.
Sailors sought extra wages after two crew members deserted, with the captain promising to divide deserters' wages among remaining crew. The court held the agreement void for want of consideration, as sailors were already contractually bound to complete the voyage under all emergencies.
Stevedores negligently damaged cargo while unloading. A bill of lading, to which they were not a party, contained an exemption clause extending protection to them. The Privy Council held the stevedores could rely on the clause, creating a binding contract through their performance.
William Tweddle married the daughter of William Guy. Both fathers agreed in writing to pay sums to William Tweddle, with the agreement stating he could sue for the amounts. When Guy's executor failed to pay, Tweddle sued. The court held that a stranger to the consideration cannot sue on a contract, even if made for his benefit.
A father promised to pay £1 weekly for his illegitimate child's maintenance if the mother proved the child would be well looked after and happy. The Court of Appeal held there was sufficient consideration for this promise, even though the mother had a pre-existing legal duty to maintain the child.
A carpenter agreed to carry out carpentry work for building contractors at a price that proved too low. When the carpenter encountered financial difficulties, the contractors promised to pay an additional sum to ensure completion and avoid penalties under their main contract. The court held this promise was enforceable as the contractors obtained practical benefits constituting valid consideration.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive