Coursework Question: Consideration must have some value in the eyes of law. Discuss.

Answer Guide: 1. Define the doctrine of consideration Currie v Misa (Lush J) (5 marks) 2. State the academic arguments by Prof. Treitel and Prof. Atiyah in regards to the definition of the doctrine. (5 marks) 3. State the scope/rule of the doctrine. (5 marks) 4. Emphasise on consideration must be sufficient and need not be adequate. (5 marks) 4. State what does it meant to have sufficient consideration. (5 marks) 5. State what does it meant to say consideration must have value in the eyes of law referring to relevant case law. (20 marks)

5. Discuss why performance of an existing contract or legal duty is not sufficient consideration for a new promise. (10 marks) 6. Discuss the change Williams v Roffey Brothers brought to this area of law and how it impacted the subsequent cases. (20 marks) 7. Discuss the area of law courts refused to adopt Williams v Roffey Brothers. (20 marks) 8. Conclude and state if you agree with the question. (5 marks)

Cases to refer: Currie v Misa Thomas v Thomas Chappell v Nestle White v Bluett Hamer v Sidway Ward v Byham Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan CC Collins v Godefroy Stilk Myrick Hartley v Ponsonby Williams v Roffey Brothers Pinnels Case Foakes v Beer Re Selectmove MWB v Rock Advertising