Doctrine Of Consideration Case Study

Is Consideration Slowly becoming Irrelevant?

I. Introduction

Despite extensive material written over the doctrine of consideration, the law surrounding this concept remains ambiguous. In this paper I shall discuss why the doctrine of consideration is less important than the need to create legal intention for a contract to be valid. I have collaborated my study through the analysis of various case laws and have tried to prove and conclude through such an analysis why the doctrine of consideration is losing its relevance.

II. Background

The value and importance of consideration in common law has been stressed and spoken of time and again. In the words of Anson, “Consideration is not one of the several tests, it is the only test of the intention

Such a view has been held by Wright , Professor Lorenzen , Dean Roscoe Pound and Sir William Holdsworth who has gone on to say that, in its present form the doctrine of consideration is somewhat an anachronism. Certain staunch opponents of the doctrine have said that “The time has now come, either for the courts themselves to overrule the entire doctrine, or for the legislature to act and by a brief statute declare that the doctrine of consideration is hereby abolished.”

III. The doctrine of Consideration and Legal Intention

When discussing the irrelevance of consideration, an important question often asked is when legal intention can be proved, then why do we need another test to prove consideration exists? There can be consideration yet no legal intention to enter into contact, which contradicts the statement given by Anson. Thus only because consideration exists, does not mean that the necessity of the intention of the contract is eliminated.

1.1 Consideration is not a proof of Legal

Balfour discussed this theory. In this case, the husband before going abroad promised to give the wife an allowance of $ 30 a month as consideration on the ground that she would support herself entirely through the allowance. Lord Atkin said in the Court of Appeal that “it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract appears to me to be the arrangements which are made between husband and wife ". He later added that “to my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute