(b) The issue at hand necessitates a discussion of the defendant's potential

responsibility. We'll look at whether or not consideration is adequate to form the

basis of the contract, as well as whether or not an existing obligation qualifies as
good consideration, and whether the defendant is liable or not based on relevant
case law.
Is this a sufficient factor in the case when Charles first pledges to pay for the
honeymoon? According to Currie v Misa, consideration is defined as an advantage
or profit to one party and a loss or detriment to the other. This is founded on the
give-and-take arrangement. Here, Charles' want to travel for the honeymoon was
sufficient consideration, as was Devi and Erin's marriage sufficient consideration.
Coming to the stage whether the consideration moved to the promisee. In this
case, the defendant warned Devi that if he marries his sister, he would give up his
honeymoon. Furthermore, there is no question of past consideration, therefore
the question is whether the promise of a existing obligation constitutes good
consideration.
Coming to the stage where Charles committed to grant honeymoon but later
refused it might be considered a breach of an existing obligation. There are four
types, however this one may apply when a with a third party creates an
obligation. In the matter of Jones v White, the situation regarding a pledge to
execute to a third party was not taken into account at first. Promise to a third
party was regarded adequate consideration in Shadwel v Shadwll, and similar
views were expressed in The Eurymedon and Pao on v Lau Yiu Long 1980. This
means that, in the instances mentioned above, promising to fulfil an existing duty
to a third party can be considered good consideration. As a result, we can
conclude that Devi, as per Pao on, and Eurymedon, can enforce the honeymoon
promised by Charles in the courts.