Thomas v Thomas 1842 - Consideration need not be adequate. The plaintiff's husband has expressed the wish that she should live in his house if he should predecease her. The executors of his will, his brothers, were aware of his wishes, but he had not expressed his instructions in his will. The brothers arranged for the plaintiff to live in the house until she died or remarried and in return she paid them one pound a year. When one brother died, the other removed her from the house and she sued for breach of contract. It is likely that her action would have failed but for the one pound consideration that she provided; however, she succeeded.
Chappel v Nestle Co Ltd 1960 - "A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses." (Lord Somervell). The plaintiffs owned the copyright to a dance tune that the defendants had produced on a record and offered to the public. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, they were not required to request permission from the plaintiffs if recording the music for retail sale but needed only to pay to them a proportion of the selling price, in this case a smaller sum than usual plus three chocolate wrappers. The plaintiffs argued that this did not constitute retailing in the sense of the Act, as chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration for the record, even though the defendants simply threw them away. The defendents argued that the wrappers were valueless and therefore not consideration. It was held that the chocolate wrappers did constitute consideration and that the defendants were in breach of copyright.
Stilk v Myrick 1809 - Performance of an existing contractual obligation is not sufficient consideration. The Captain of a ship offered its sailors the wages of two deserters, divided between the remaining crew, if they sailed the ship home short handed. He then refused to pay this money when the ship returned to port. It was held that the sailors were not entitled to the extra money as they had not done any more than they were already obliged to do.
Hartley v Ponsonby 1857 - "Extra" consideration will be sufficient consideration. A crew of thirty-six sailors was reduced to one of nineteen following numerous desertions. Of the remaining sailors, only very few were experienced sailors. The captain offered them a bonus if they sailed the ship, thus shorthanded, back to port. This they did, but the captain then refused to pay the bonus.
It was held that the crew were entitled to the bonus; they had performed duties over and above their existing duties.
Williams v Roffey 1990 "Extra" consideration will be sufficient consideration.
Re Selectmove (1995) - Part payment of a debt is not sufficient consideration
Collins v Godefroy 1831 - Consideration is not sufficient where there is an existing public duty to carry out the deed.C was subpoenaed to give evidence in a case in which G was involved and G promised him money to attend. He attended and gave evidence but G refused to pay. It was held that there was no consideration on C's part, as he was already obliged to attend under subpoenae. There was therefore no enforceable contract.
Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan CC 1925 - if exceed a statutory duty then there is sufficient consideration. The Police were asked by a mining company to provide extra protection during a miners' strike which was thought unnecessary by the Police themselves. The protection was provided as requested and a charge levied. The company protested the charge, claiming that the Police had performed only their statutory duty and had therefore not provided consideration. It was held that the statutory duty of the Police had been exceeded and that the Police had provided consideration.
Ward v Byham 1956 The performance of an existing duty will not usually constitute good consideration. However, "extra" consideration, such as ensuring that the child is happy is not a statutory provision The mother of an illegitimate child was offered £1 a week by its father to care for the child, keeping it "well looked after and happy". She was, of course, already under a statutory duty to care for her child. The court held that she had promised to something more than her mere statutory duty ("well looked after and happy") and that the father's promise was enforceable.
Harris v Sheffield United FC (1988)
Alliance Bank Limited v Broom (1864) - Consideration may be a promise not to sue
Shadwell v Shadwell
Scotson v Pegg
The Eurymedon
Roscorla v Thomas (1842) Consideration must not be in the past