The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States.
Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money, services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid pro quo to support their side of the bargain.
A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisor does not like pepper and will throw away the corn.
However, William Guy failed to pay the son of John Tweddle, who then sued his executors for the amount promised.
It was held that Collins could not enforce the promise as he was under a statutory duty to give evidence in any event.
It was held that notwithstanding the statutory duty imposed on the mother, she could enforce the promise since the act of keeping the baby 'happy' provided additional consideration.
[21] Promising to perform a pre-existing duty owed to one's contracting party also fails to make good consideration.
Stilk agreed and on return to port, Myrick refused to pay him the extra wages.
[25] Initially, there were only two exceptions to this rule: However, the strictness of this rule was severely limited in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.[28] The Roffey Brothers entered into a contract to refurbish a block of flats for a fixed price of £20,000.
Williams continued to work on this basis, but soon it became apparent that Roffey Brothers were not going to pay the additional money.
He ceased work and sued Roffey Brothers for the extra money, for the eight flats he had completed after the promise of additional payment.
In the circumstances, these benefits were sufficient to provide consideration for the promise made to Williams of additional payment.
It now seems that the performance of an existing duty may constitute consideration for a new promise, in the circumstances where no duress or fraud are found and where the practical benefits are to the promisor.
The following, mentioned in Pinnel's Case,[23] and confirmed by Sibree v. Tripp,[30] may amount to fresh consideration: Another exception is that part payment of the debt by a third party as consideration for a promise to discharge the creditor from the full sum, prevents the creditor then suing the debtor for full payment (see Welby v Drake).
The Court of Appeal, in Re Selectmove Ltd,[32] stated that the practical benefit doctrine, arising from Williams v Roffey,[28] cannot be used as an additional exception to the rule.
[33] The Court of Appeal in June 2016 in MWB v Rock Advertising revisited the issue of whether the practical benefit doctrine could be applied to decreasing pacts or agreements to accept less.
[citation needed] Consideration for a promise can be the performance of a contractual duty owed to someone other than the promisor.