Consideration

Introduction

**Consideration** is the bargain-element of an English simple contract: without it, an agreement is a **gratuitous promise**, unenforceable unless made by **deed**. This chapter (Unit 2 — Formation of a Contract) examines how to **identify consideration**, the rules on **sufficiency and adequacy**, **past consideration** and the **Pao On exception**, **performance of an existing duty** (public duty, duty to a third party, and duty to the promisor — from **Stilk v Myrick** to **Williams v Roffey**), **part-payment of a debt** under the **rule in Pinnel's Case** and **Foakes v Beer**, **contractual variation** (including **no-oral-modification clauses** after **Rock Advertising v MWB**), and the equitable doctrine of **promissory estoppel** (**High Trees**).

Assessment focus

The SRA FLK1 specification tests consideration **directly** — identification, sufficiency, adequacy, past consideration, pre-existing duty, part-payment of a debt and variation — and tests the related equitable doctrine of **promissory estoppel** as a qualification on the rule in **Pinnel's Case**. Expect scenario SBAQs in which a party seeks to enforce a promise **to pay more**, **to accept less**, or **to forbear from suing**: the examiner will test whether **fresh consideration** was given (**Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd**), whether a **written variation** can be effective without it (**Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd**), and whether **promissory estoppel** can be used as a **shield**. Candidates should be able to cite the **three limbs of High Trees** and apply them to facts. This is a closed-book assessment — learn the cases and tests from memory.

Study tips

1) Distinguish **'sufficient'** (recognised as having value in law) from **'adequate'** (economically proportionate): the courts police sufficiency, **not** adequacy. 2) Remember the **asymmetry**: **Williams v Roffey** supplies consideration in **'pay-more'** cases (practical benefit), but after **Re Selectmove** it does **NOT** extend to **'accept-less'** (part-payment) cases, which remain governed by **Pinnel/Foakes v Beer**. 3) Memorise the **three limbs of the Pao On exception** and the **Pinnel exceptions** (earlier date / different place / chattel / third-party payment / composition / disputed debt). 4) For variation scenarios, run the **four-stage analysis**: fresh consideration → Pinnel exception → promissory estoppel → NOM clause (**Rock Advertising**). 5) For estoppel, learn the **four requirements** and the **three limits** (shield not sword — **Combe v Combe**; suspensory not extinctive — **Tool Metal**; clean hands — **D&C Builders v Rees**).