When asked about a contract, most people would point to a piece of document

which two parties agreed and signed. This is certainly true but in law, the term contract
covers a wider meaning, including any legally binding agreement either written or
unwritten. The most common being that where an offeree accepts to all the terms of an
offer offered to him by the offeror. We unknowingly entered into multiple contracts without
realising, common examples include hailing a cab, buying our daily cup of coffee. Contract
law is considered one of the most important law in our society. Without it, it is nearly
impossible for the society to run. Imagine contractors agreeing to undertake a project but
after work is done, the contractor never gets paid as there are no formal contract or the
other party decided against paying the contractors. A market economy would only work
efficiently only when members of such economy can rely on the promises to plan their
economic activities.

In English law, an offer is first made by the offeror to the offeree. The offeree must
then accept the offer and the terms that comes with it. An agreement is not binding unless
supported by consideration. This means that each parties to a contract must give something
in return for what is gained from the other party. Lush J. in Currie v Misa (1875) referred to
consideration as consisting of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor.1
Consideration can take the form of both goods or services. Most contracts are valid only
while backed by a consideration by both parties, without such a consideration, the law will
only deem it as an gratuitous promise could not be enforceable in court except in certain
case such as Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947)2 where the
equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel was used to prevent the claimant from going back
on a promise unsupported by a consideration. In the following paragraphs we would look
into the elements of a contract and evaluate whether there exist a contractual duty and
whether the parties concerned had been furnished by consideration on the part of Chuck
and Leonard to fulfil their promises.

1
The Importance of Currie v. Misa in Contract Law -
https://www.legalsecretaryjournal.com/?q=The_Importance_of_Currie_v._Misa_in_Contract_Law

2
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130

1
 Chuck the circus owner engaged Robert the locksmith to install new locks on lion
cages. However while embarking on his duty to install the new locks, bumped into Leonard
who was concerned about his safety and promised to pay Robert a further $100 after the
work was done. The facts in such a case are similar to the case of Stilk v Myrick (1809)3
where during a voyage, 2 of the 12 crews on board deserted the ship. The captain then
promised to divide the pay of the 2 seamen who deserted the ship to the remaining 10.
However, the captain broke his promise and paid the remaining seamen what was
previously agreed before the 2 seamen deserted the ship. The claimant then brought a claim
against the defendant to claim back the remaining wage. It was held by the courts that the
claimant was already under an existing duty to work the ship back and undertook to give in
to whatever emergencies along the trip. Furthermore the remaining seamen did not provide
any consideration for the promise of extra money, hence their claim failed. In the
contrasting case of Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)4, half of the crew deserted the ship and was
promised extra pay upon the successful return to Bombay. In this case the court held that
the abandonment of half the crew made the trip back significantly more dangerous than it
normally would hence provided extra consideration hence the remaining seamen deserved
to be compensated. On an orthodox view, Robert is already under the contractual duty to
fix the locks as directed by Chuck and had not provided extra consideration for the promise
of extra pay by Leonard. Hence Robert could not claim for the $100 promised by Leonard
after he had completed the work.

Chuck then engaged Paul for $2,500 to undertake the painting job of the Big Top
before the upcoming weekend which is a bank holiday coupled with nice summer
temperatures where he would usually receive a lot of customers. Halfway through the
painting, Paul discovered that it was impossible to finish the painting in time and asked
Chuck for a further $ 800 to cover the cost of engaging another painter in order to finish the
task before weekend. Chuck gets annoyed but nevertheless agreed to his request when he
saw Paul packing and getting into his van. In the case of Williams v Roffey (1991)5 where it
involved the defendant, a building contractors who agreed with the claimant to refurbish
some flats. A liquidated damages clause was included in the agreed contract to ensure that

3
Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58
4
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322
5
Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 2 WLR 1153

2
work would be completed in time. 6 months into the work, the claimant realised that the
agreed amount of $20,000 was too little in order for the work to be completed on time. The
claimant communicated their distress with the defendant. The defendant then promise to
pay a further $10,300 to ensure that the work be done before the due date. After
completing the work, the defendant refused to pay the promised some. The Court of Appeal
found in favour of the claimant as the defendant’s promise to pay extra was supported by
valuable consideration by the claimant to finish the work in time. The defendant would
avoid losing money under the clause laid down in the agreement between the defendant
and building’s owners. Also, he avoided the hassle to find another contractor to finish the
work. Hence even when the claimant is just doing what he was obliged to do under the
contract, the defendant received extra benefit. There clearly exist such a relationship
between Chuck and Paul. Chuck clearly received extra benefits of the painting being done
on time in order to accommodate and attract more customers during the bank holiday
weekend. However, the act of Paul packing and getting into his van may amount to duress.
Duress in contract law relates to where a party enters into a contract as a result of treats.
When such a situation arises, the contract can be set aside. Originally, the law only
recognises threats of unlawful physical violence but in recent times, economic duress has
also been recognised as giving rise to a valid claim. This was shown in the case of The
Universe Sentinel (1983)6 where Lord Scarman stated "The classic case of duress is,
however, not the lack of will to submit but the victim's intentional submission arising from
the realisation that there is no other practical choice open to him."7 In this case, the ITWF
blacked a ship, preventing it from leaving port, demanding the ship owners to pay a huge
sum of money to the Seafarers International Welfare Fund. The ship owners had no other
choice but to agree to the payment for the ship to leave port. They then sued to recover the
money paid. The court held that as the money had been extracted under economic duress,
it could be recovered. Hence following the principle laid down in the case of William v
Roffey Bros , Chuck would be bound to fulfil his promise to Paul and pay the $800 as
completing the painting before the bank holiday would be an advantage to Chuck. However,
the act of duress on the part of Paul may render the contract void as Chuck was under

6
The Universe Sentinel (1983) 1AC 366
7
Lord Scarman in The Universal Sentinel, page 419 of Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution by Andrew
S. Burrows, Ewan McKendrick

3
duress at that time and had no other practical choice but to agree to the $800 for him to
engage another painter in order for the job to be completed in time to cater for the unusual
amount of customers on that weekend. Under such circumstances Chuck would be able to
sue Paul and seek for restitution of the contract.

Mary on the other hand had did a favour for Chuck by covering for the sick fire eater
although she was not initially trained for it. Chuck, after the performance ended promised
to increase her salary. He then regretted shortly afterwards. One of the main doctrine in
contract law regarding the topic of consideration is that consideration must not be past.
This simply means that if one party to the contract completed performance before the other
offered consideration, then as a matter of fact it is highly unlikely that the performance was
in exchange of the consideration. This can be seen in the case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 8
where the defendant sold a horse to the claimant. After the sale, the defendant mentioned
to the claimant that the horse was “sound and free from any vice”. This statement was later
proved to be inaccurate, the claimant then sued. The court held that the defendant’s
promise was unenforceable as the statement was only made after the sale, hence
amounted to past consideration, for it had not been given in return for the promise.
However, when a promise was made in a business situation and was understood that the
detriment suffered by the other party would be compensated, the promisor must fulfil the
promise. This was shown in the case of Re Casey’s Patent (1892)9 where the two
defendants, A and B both owned a patent where the claimant, C was a manager working
together with them for two years. A and B promised C to give him one-third share of the
invention in return for his help in the development of the patent. The shares was
transferred to C but A and B then regretted their decision and claimed the their return. The
court held that C was able to rely on the agreement. Despite the consideration being past, it
was clearly understood in a business context that C should be compensated in some way for
his detriment and the subsequent promise merely fixed the amount in which should be
paid. There are however few exceptions where past consideration may be considered valid.
The first being the past consideration was provided at the promisor’s request, in situations
where it was understood that payment would be made in return where shown above in the

8
Roscorla v Thomas, (1842) 3 QB 234
9
Re Casey's Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104

4
case of Re Case’s Patent or where any debt or liability is valid consideration for a bill of
exchange as provided under s27(1) The Bills of Exchange Act 188210. Since Chuck had only
promised Mary to increase her salary after she performed the fire eating act, it would be
regarded as past consideration. Mary may not be able to seek for enforcement on the
promise made by Chuck after the performance, but if it was understood that such a
performance would allow a pay raise for Mary which then Mary proceeded to do such an
act, then Chuck will be bound to fulfil his promise to increase Mary’s salary.

‘A valuable in the sense of law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or
benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given,
suffered or undertaken by the other’ noted John.B 11. Consideration is no doubt the most
important element in the formation of a contract, without such consideration, the courts
will not enforce an agreement. Hence its no surprise that the law emphasises a lot on
consideration by laying out the constitution of a consideration. Firstly, past consideration is
not good consideration. Secondly, consideration need not be adequate but must be
sufficient. Lastly, consideration must move from the promise but does not have to move
from the promisor. Leonard by promising Robert the locksmith extra payment after fixing
new locks to the lion cages would not be bound by his own promise because Robert was
merely carrying out his existing duty towards Chuck the circus owner, Robert did not
provide extra consideration to justify to the extra payment.

10
The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61
11
1976,Osborn’s-Concise-Law-Dictionary 6th edn., Sweet & Maxwell, London

5
Bibliography
Articles

Official Published Sources

Electronic Sources

The Importance of Currie v. Misa in Contract Law -

https://www.legalsecretaryjournal.com/?q=The_Importance_of_Currie_v._Misa_in_Contract_Law

Table of Statutes and Cases

The Bills of Exchange Act 1882

United Kingdom Cases

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322
Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 2 WLR 1153
Roscorla v Thomas, (1842) 3 QB 234
Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWHC KB J17