sufficiency
Part 2 - Consideration and Sufficiency
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are the most relevant principles and leading cases regarding consideration and sufficiency:
Dunlop v Selfridge: The claimant must show that he or she has bought the defendant's promises, by doing, giving, or promising something in return for it (i.e., a promise not supported by consideration -a gratuitous promise- is not enforceable in law).
Thomas v Thomas: Consideration must be sufficient but not be adequate. The courts are not generally interested in whether there is a match in value between what is being offered by each contracting party.
White v Bluett: Consideration will not be sufficient if it has not economic value.
Dunlop v Selfridge: The claimant must show that he or she has bought the defendant's promises, by doing, giving, or promising something in return for it (i.e., a promise not supported by consideration -a gratuitous promise- is not enforceable in law).
Thomas v Thomas: Consideration must be sufficient but not be adequate. The courts are not generally interested in whether there is a match in value between what is being offered by each contracting party.
White v Bluett: Consideration will not be sufficient if it has not economic value.