English law recognises bargains supported by consideration, not bare promises. However, only simple contracts need consideration to be enforceable; special contracts do not require consideration.
Currie v Misa (1875) declares that consideration may comprise any of these positive and negative matters: • Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit • Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, or Responsibility"
The basic rule The leading case is
Stilk v Myrick (1809), where a captain promised 8 crew the wages of two deserters provided the remainders completed the voyage. The shipowner refused to honour the agreement; the court deemed the eight crew were unable to enforce the deal as they had an existing obligation to sail the ship and meet "ordinary foreseeable emergencies". However, in two cases the courts held that claimants provide good consideration if they act "above and beyond" their contractual obligation: • In
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857), crew who were promised a bonus after
half the complement deserted could enforce the promise of a bonus. • In
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC [1925], the police, who had been asked to protect a colliery from vandalism during a strike could seek recompense from the mine-owners.
Issues of "public policy" The rule may be affected by issues of
public policy, as in:
Collins v Godefroy (1831),
England v Davidson (1840) and
Williams v Williams [1957] • In
Collins v Godefroy a
subpoena'd witness to whom the defendant promised a guinea per day as "attendance money" could not enforce the agreement; the witness had an existing duty to attend and it would be contrary to public policy to permit such payments. After all, one might then contemplate paying witness not to appear! • In
England v Davidson a policeman was allowed to claim a reward for offering information leading to a criminal's capture; it was held to be "in the interest of justice". • In
Williams v Williams, where a husband promised his estranged wife an allowance if she did not "pledge his credit",
Lord Denning MR held the promise was enforceable as it was "not contrary to public policy:".
Issues of "Benefit" The court may also enforce an agreement provided that is gives benefit: • In
Ward v Byham [1956] an unmarried couple with a child separated after 5 years. The husband promised to pay the mother £1 per week provided she ensured the child was well looked after and happy. The Court held that (although she had an existing duty to care) the promise was enforceable as being in the public interest. • In
Williams v Roffey [1990] a contractor subcontracted joinery work for an agreed price of £20,000. (The main contract with the client included a
penalty clause for delay). The joiner ran out of funds and was heading for bankruptcy, so he asked the contractor for an extra amount, some of which was reluctantly paid. The job was finished on time, but the contractor refused to pay the final sum. The court held that the revised agreement was enforceable and the contractor, by promising the extra cash, had received the valuable benefit of being free of penalties and possible problems with a new subcontractor. ==Practical issues ==