A) Consideration1 must be included as a fundamental part of a contract for it to be

enforceable. It is essential in figuring out whether the contract can be enforced.

Typically, one party defines consideration as the price or value they must pay in
exchange for a promise from another. Aspects like the services offered and other such
elements define a thing is worth in terms of money or tradeable commodities.
According to the doctrine of consideration2, an exchange of valued objects between
the contractual parties is required to form a binding contract. The contract requires
that both parties realise gains and losses because of it.

In conclusion, consideration is a crucial element of contract law that necessitates the

exchange of something of value between the parties. It ensures fairness and equity in
business transactions and is a requirement for the creation of legal agreements.

The common law's differences in the domain of law involving contemplation have
drawn criticism. The necessity of consideration3 would be eliminated, and reliance-
based theories of contract enforcement would take its place, according to proposed
changes to the doctrine of consideration. According to this theory, a contract would
be enforceable if one party negatively depended on the other's commitment. The
addition of a duty for a good faith effort to fulfil the contract is another proposed
change.

By doing this, parties to a contract would be required to act in good faith towards one
another and would have a remedy available in the event of a breach. By addressing
some of the critiques of the current doctrine of consideration, these changes aim to
make contract law more equitable.
_____________________________________________________________________
1 ‘Doctrine of Consideration in Contract Law’ (UpCounsel) <>.
2 ‘109. The Doctrine of Consideration. | Contract | LexisNexis’ (www.lexisnexis.co.uk) <>.
3 ‘Consideration’ (dictionary.cambridge.org) <>.
There are some cases regarding to the issue above. The case of Stilk v. Myrick4 involves
a disagreement between sailors and their commander regarding the payment for
extra work done while on a journey. The sailors claimed that because some of their
fellow crew members had deserted, they had to labour under harder conditions and
were therefore entitled to additional compensation. Although the sailors' current
contract already compelled them to do the work even if some of their fellow crew
members departed, the court ruled that they were not entitled to further
compensation.

The court's ruling established a crucial rule of contract law, namely that fulfilling an
existing obligation under an existing contract is not sufficient consideration for
entering into a new one unless a new provision is added. This rule is crucial because it
prevents parties to a contract from being unjustly obligated to fulfil existing duties
without obtaining anything in return. It also prevents parties from renegotiating a
contract's terms for the same thing without offering anything new in return. The case
also emphasises the significance of carefully reviewing a contract's terms. The sailors
might have been entitled to more money if they had bargained for it before doing the
extra labour.

However, the court determined that there was no new consideration to support their
claim for higher compensation because they executed the service without any prior
agreement. Overall, the Stilk v. Myrick5 case emphasises the necessity for parties to
carefully evaluate the wording of their agreements to ensure that they are
enforceable and equitable and serves as an important illustration of how the doctrine
of consideration operates in contract law. It also acts as a lesson for parties to bargain
and come to an agreement on conditions before carrying out further work or fulfilling
duties under an existing contract.
_____________________________________________________________________
4 LawTeacher, ‘Stilk v Myrick 1809 – Case Summary’ (Lawteacher.net2012) <>.
5 Will Chen, ‘Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317 - Case Summary’ (lawprof.co31 October 2020) <>.
In addition to that, in the case of Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) 6 Nestle ran
a promotion in which buyers could acquire a music record by sending in three
chocolate bar wrappers and a modest fee. Chappell & Co Ltd, the owner of the music's
copyright, filed a lawsuit against Nestle for copyright infringement on the grounds that
Nestle lacked authorization to use the song. The court determined that a valid contract
between Nestle, and the customers existed because of the wrappers and payment
constituting legal consideration for the music record. Nestle7 therefore had the right
to utilise the music because it had been granted a legitimate licence by the agreement
with its clients.

This case serves as an example of the use of the idea of consideration in contract law
and emphasises the significance of carefully reviewing a contract's provisions. It also
shows how important it is for parties to secure the required authorizations and
licences before using any copyrighted works.

Another case is Foakes v. Beer8. A debtor who owed a creditor money asked to pay it
back in instalments. After initially accepting the arrangement, the creditor then
changed their mind and wanted payment of the entire amount immediately. The
arrangement to pay in instalments was backed by consideration, the court decided,
therefore the debtor was not required to pay the entire amount. This decision
established a crucial legal principle which is a partial payment of a debt does not,
absent a new agreement accompanied by fresh consideration, provide sufficient
consideration for the discharge of the full debt. This idea has become a tenet of
contract law after being supported in countless subsequent cases.

It is important to note that Foakes v. Beer9 has generated a lot of discussion and
criticism in the legal community. Some contend that the decision is too stringent and
ignores the practicalities of repaying debt. Others claim that the decision is essential
to stop creditors from exploiting debtors and unjustly requesting full payment.
Despite these concerns, the case continues to be a significant turning point in
contract law evolution.
_____________________________________________________________________
6 ‘Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <>.
7 ‘Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd’ (Lawteacher.net2020) <>.
8 ‘Foakes v Beer - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <>.
9 ‘Foakes v Beer – Case Brief’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <>.
B) There are several issues that arise with regards to the ownership of the house in
question. Firstly, Beatrice and Charles10 may not be able to enforce Louis's promise to
transfer ownership of the house to them upon his death. This is because there is no
consideration provided by Beatrice and Charles to support Louis's promise. Without
consideration, a contract cannot be formed, and therefore, cannot be enforced.

Additionally, the promise made by Louis is not supported by a written agreement. This
means that the promise cannot be enforced under the Statute of Frauds. The Statute
of Frauds requires certain contracts, including those involving the transfer of real
property, to be in writing to be enforceable. In order for Beatrice and Charles to
acquire ownership of the house, they may need to consider alternative legal options.
This could include negotiating a new agreement with Louis that satisfies the
requirements for a valid contract or seeking legal action to force Louis to fulfil his
promise.

One of the key requirements for enforcing any promises made by Louis11 is that
Beatrice and Charles must prove that there was an intention to create legal relations.
In this case, given the familial relationship between the parties and the informal
nature of their agreement, it is unlikely that there was an intention to create legal
relations. When family members make informal agreements, they often do not have
the intention of being legally bound by them. This is because these agreements are
usually made on the basis of trust and mutual understanding, rather than based on
legal obligations. Therefore, it is important for Beatrice and Charles to establish that
there was an intention to create legal relations when they made their agreement with
Louis.
_____________________________________________________________________
10 Eric Dirix, Sjef Van Erp and Brigitta Lurger, ‘White v Jones [1995] 2 WLR 187, HL’ (1996) 4
European Review of Private Law <> accessed 29 May 2023.
11 ibid
It is harder to prove that there was an intention to establish legal relations in this case
because there was no written agreement between the parties. It is necessary to
demonstrate that the parties benefited from or suffered harm because of their
agreement to prove an intention to establish legal relations. However, there is no
concrete proof that Beatrice and Charles12 benefited or suffered from their
arrangement with Louis in this case.

Beatrice cannot recover the £3,000 promised by Louis for redesigning the living room
as there was no intention to create legal relations. This means that the agreement
between Beatrice and Louis was not legally binding, and as such, Beatrice cannot
enforce Louis to pay the promised amount. Furthermore, there was no consideration
to support Louis's promise to pay Beatrice. In other words, there was no exchange of
something of value between the parties, which is a necessary element of a contract.
Beatrice cannot claim that Louis owes her money for the work she did. It is important
to note that verbal agreements can be legally binding, but in this case, the absence of
intention to create legal relations and consideration made the agreement
unenforceable.

Charles13 is unable to seek the additional £1,000 promised by Louis for the cost of the
special bricks due to the absence of an intention to create legal relations and the lack
of consideration to support Louis's promise. The absence of an intention to create
legal relations means that the parties did not intend to be bound by the agreement in
a legal sense, which is a requirement for an agreement to be enforceable. In this case,
there was no evidence that Charles and Louis intended to create legal relations when
they made their agreement. Therefore, the agreement is not enforceable, and Charles
cannot claim the additional payment. The agreement was made after Charles had
already begun building the wall, before Louis made the promise to pay the additional
£1,000, which means that there was no consideration to support Louis's promise.
According to the agreement made between Louis and James, the debt of £2,000 was
waived. However, the agreement was only between Louis and James, and Charles was
not a part of it. Therefore, legally, Charles does not have any obligation to pay James
any money. Due to the fact that Charles was not a part of the agreement, he is not
legally bound to pay James any amount of money as per the agreement. Therefore,
James cannot recover the balance of £2,000 from Charles.

In conclusion, none of the commitments made by Louis are likely to be legally

enforceable given the informal and familial nature of the agreements made between
the parties. Many of the promises made are also unsupported by any consideration,
and in some cases, agreements were signed after one party had already fulfilled their
commitment, so there was no compensation to back up the pledges.
_____________________________________________________________________
12 ‘White v Jones – 1995’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <>.
13 ibid
A common instance of a domestic agreement14 that does not establish legal links is
Balfour v. Balfour (1919)15. While he was working abroad, the spouse in question
pledged to give his wife a monthly stipend, but he later ceased doing so. The
arrangement was established in the framework of the couples' personal relationship
and was not intended to be legally binding, the court determined, therefore there was
no intent to establish legal connections between them.

Another case which relates to the above is the case of Jones v. Padavatton16, a mother
committed to give her daughter a monthly stipend while she was attending school in
London. The mother ceased paying once the daughter finished her education and
went back to Malaysia. The arrangement was established in the framework of the
couples' personal relationship and was not intended to be legally binding, the court
determined, therefore there was no intent to establish legal connections between
them. This situation is frequently used as an illustration of how a domestic agreement
does not establish legal relations17.

A last example will be the case of Merritt v. Merritt (1970)18, a husband and wife were
divorcing, and the husband pledged to give the wife ownership of their house. The
arrangement was made in the context of their separation and was meant to be legally
binding, thus the court found that there was a purpose to establish legal connections.
As a result, the wife had a right to the property. This situation is frequently used as an
illustration of a domestic contract that does establish legal relations 19.
1957 words
_____________________________________________________________________
14 ‘Balfour v Balfour’ (Australian Contract Law) <>.
15 IPSA LOQUITUR, ‘Balfour v Balfour - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <>.
16 ‘Jones v Padavatton - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <>.
17 ‘Jones v Padavatton – 1969’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <>.
18 ‘Merritt v Merritt - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <>.
19 ‘Merritt v Merritt – 1970’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <>.
Bibliography

1. ‘Doctrine of Consideration in Contract Law’ (UpCounsel) <https://www.upcounsel.com/doctrine-of-

consideration-in-contract-law#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20consideration%20requires>
2. ‘109. The Doctrine of Consideration. | Contract | LexisNexis’ (www.lexisnexis.co.uk)
<https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/commentary/halsburys-laws-of-england/contract/the-doctrine-of-
consideration>
3. ‘Consideration’ (dictionary.cambridge.org)
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consideration>
4. ——, ‘Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317 - Case Summary’ (lawprof.co31 October 2020)
<https://lawprof.co/contract/consideration-cases/stilk-v-myrick-1809-2-camp-317/>
5. LawTeacher, ‘Stilk v Myrick 1809 – Case Summary’ (Lawteacher.net2012)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/stilk-v-myrick.php>
6. ‘Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR)
<https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/cases/chappell-v-nestle/>
7. ‘Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd’ (Lawteacher.net2020) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/chappell-v-
nestle.php>
8. ‘Foakes v Beer - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-
law/cases/foakes-v-beer/>
9. ‘Foakes v Beer – Case Brief’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/foakes-v-
beer.php>
10. Dirix E, Erp SV and Lurger B, ‘White v Jones [1995] 2 WLR 187, HL’ (1996) 4 European Review of
Private Law
<https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Review+of+Private+Law/4.4/146742>
accessed 29 May 2023
11. ‘White v Jones – 1995’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/white-v-jones.php>
12. ‘Balfour v Balfour’ (Australian Contract Law)
<https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/balfour-v-balfour>
13. LOQUITUR I, ‘Balfour v Balfour - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR)
<https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/cases/balfour-v-balfour/>
14. ‘Jones v Padavatton - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-
law/cases/jones-v-padavatton/>
15. ‘Jones v Padavatton – 1969’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/jones-v-
padavatton.php>
16. ‘Merritt v Merritt - Case Summary’ (IPSA LOQUITUR) <https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-
law/cases/merritt-v-merritt/>
17. ‘Merritt v Merritt – 1970’ (Lawteacher.net2019) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-
merritt.php>