Posted by kier on 3/31/06

More | Report Post

What is the statement ‘consideration must be sufficient
but need not be adequate’ means that consideration must
be sufficient in law [however need not be adequate but
sufficient]. There must the possibility of some value
capable of expression in economic term to the original
promise but need not be adequate (far) as matter of
commercial exchange. Thus, a gratuitous promise or
‘agreement’ cannot enforceable as a contract. Natural
love and affection is also not sufficient consideration,
likewise sentimental motive. Therefore, the Court will not
investigate its adequacy and see if the parties have got
equal value. It can be summarized that the limitation to
this doctrine as merely doing something to entitle
yourself to a gift will not provide sufficient
consideration , and nor will giving something you were not
entitle to give. For example, if I offer to sell you my
house for £1, this is valid consideration. If I offer to
give you my house for nothing, there is no consideration
and this agreement could not be enforceable.
In the case of Thomas v. Thomas, the promise to pay £1 per
annum rent was irrelevant to the fact of ‘sufficient’ to
pay for commercial rent. The Courts did not consider the
issue of ‘adequacy’ to pay. The rule is well established
in the case of Chappell v. Nestle Co Ltd that
‘consideration only needs to be sufficient not
adequate’. This case, dispute was centred on whether
chocolate wrapper could form part of the consideration. It
was held that they could as they were of value to the
person providing them and were therefore sufficient
consideration for the promise made. Whether or not
consideration is sufficient, that shall be a subjective
test. So, it justified the Courts approached to the issue
of ‘adequacy’ by reference to ‘freedom of contract’.
The contracting parties could stipulate for what
consideration that they had been chosen. The Courts would
not interfere just because it appears that a person had
made a bad bargain. The reasoning of Chappell was
presumably that the requirement to send in the worthless
wrappers would encourage more people to buy the company
chocolate.
It can be summarized the points of law and arguments in
the above for the statement ‘consideration must be
sufficient but need not be adequate’. When considering
‘value’, the Courts is not interested in ‘adequacy’ of
consideration, i.e. whether the price is ‘fair’, it is
only concerned with whether or not the consideration can
be expressed in terms of economic worth. Hence,
intangibles such as emotions (respect for a husband’s
wishes, love and affection), lack of boredom – Thomas v.
Thomas and White v. Bluett are not valuable consideration.
Provided, however that the consideration has some economic
value to you, as long as it has some economic purpose –
Chappell v. Nestle.
This explains White v Bluett (1853) where a son’s promise
to stop complaining to his father about the distribution
of the father’s property was held to be incapable of
amounting to consideration.

Explain the statement ‘consideration must be sufficient but , 3/31/06, by kier.

Contracts Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST