Consideration — common mistakes

In problem questions, when you identify the consideration, state clearly why it is 'sufficient' (e.g., it has tangible economic value or represents a legal detriment), even if it appears 'inadequate' (e.g., a peppercorn). This shows the examiner you understand the distinction.

Yes, under the common law rule in Foakes v Beer. Your promise to waive the remaining £500 is not supported by any new consideration from the debtor. However, the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel might prevent you from going back on your promise if it would be inequitable to do so, for example, if the debtor has relied on your promise to their detriment.

No. The Court of Appeal in Williams v Roffey was careful to state they were refining and limiting the application of Stilk v Myrick, not overruling it. Stilk v Myrick remains the starting principle for performance of an existing duty. The 'practical benefit' test from Williams v Roffey applies to promises of extra payment for goods or services, but it does not apply to part-payment of debt cases, as confirmed in Re Selectmove (1995).

The case of Chappell v Nestle illustrates the principle that consideration must be 'sufficient' but need not be 'adequate'. The court is not concerned with the intrinsic value, but whether it was something requested by the promisor. Nestle had requested the wrappers as part of their sales promotion to increase chocolate sales. Therefore, the wrappers had a commercial value to them, and this was enough to make them legally sufficient consideration for the contract to supply the record.