Question

Question 1

A contract is a agreement that recognizes and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. There are five essential elements that maek a contract legally binding and enforceable. One of the elements is Consideration. What is Consideration in contract? Please illustrate with at least 3 court cases to support your argument.

Answer 1

The word “consideration” in contract law refers to something that has value in the eyes of the law. Consideration is an essential element to make a contract and must be provided for a contract to be legally binding.

In contract law, it is said that "consideration must move from the promise". If there is "a promisee", there must already be a promisor and if the he promisor has already made a promise to the promisee, which is not yet sufficient to form a contract in the sense the promisee must give something back to the promisor - a promise. Thus, when the promisee promises to do something - gives consideration which is legally binding contract is formed, provided the other elements have been satisflied.

Collins v Godefroy (1831)

Godefroy had promised to pay Collins if Collins would attend court and give evidence on the behalf of Godefroy. Collins was served with a subpoena (i.e., a court order telling someone they must attend). Collins did attend the court for 6 days was not called to give any evidence and he later asked for the payment and did not recieve any payments sued for payment. It was held that as Collins was under a legal duty to attend court he had not provided consideration. His action therefore failed and the contract was not enforceable by law.

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

When nineteen out of thirty-six crew of a ship deserted, the captain of the ship Posonby promised to pay the remaining crew extra money to sail back, but later refused to pay saying that they were only doing their normal jobs. In this case, however, the ship was so seriously undermanned that the rest of the journey had become extremely hazardous. It was held that sailing the ship back in such dangerous conditions was over and above their normal duties. It discharged the sailors from their existing contract and left them free to enter into a new contract for the rest of the voyage. They were therefore entitled to the money.

Glassbrooke v GCC (1925)

During a stirke the police were under a duty to protect a coal mine and proposed mobile units. The mine owner promised to pay for police to be stationed on the premises for additional protection. The police complied with this request but when they claimed the money, the mine owner refused to pay saying that the police had simply carried out their public duty. It was held that although the police were bound to provide protection, they had a discretion as to the form it should take. As they believed mobile police were sufficient, they had acted over their normal duties. The extra protection was good consideration for the promise by the mine owner to pay for it, thus, the contract was enforceable by law and the police were entitled for the payment.