Mr Bluett had lent his son some money.

[1] Pollock CB held there was no consideration for any discharge of the obligation to repay.

By the argument, a principle is pressed to an absurdity, as a bubble is blown until it bursts.

It is said, the son had a right to an equal distribution of his father's property, and did complain to his father because he had not an equal share, and said to him, I will cease to complain if you will not sue upon this note.

The son had no right to complain, for the father might make what distribution of his property he liked; and the son's abstaining from doing what he had no right to do can be no consideration.Baron Alderson added this: There is a consideration on one side, and it is said the consideration on the other is the agreement itself; if that were so, there could never be a nudum pactum.