Consideration of contract, a few important points

1. Definition: The definition of the case Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) still considered valid which basically says: consideration is an act or forbearance or the promise of one party for which the promise of others is bought. And the promise thus given for value is enforceable.
2. Past Consideration is not good consideration: in the case of Roscarlo v Thomas, a horse being sold by the defendant, claimant later claimed that seller told the horse is free from vice, but it isn’t. Court held that no such warranty can be implied after the sale is done plus there is no consideration found for that so therefore court decided in favour of the defendant.
3. Consideration must be of value, but need not to be adequate.
4. Consideration must move from the promisee: Price v Easton, Defendant promised X that he would pay a third party for the work done. But later when not paid court decided that third party can’t sue against the defendant as no prmise moved from claimant’s end.
5. Without consideration a contract is invalid, therefore it’s a mere agreement not enforceable in the eye of the law.
6. But there is exception to the above, in some special cases if the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is applicable then even without existence of any consideration a contract can still be valid. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd, after the second world war, landlord decreased the rent for the tenant as not enough people to rent apartments. But later when situation normalized the landlord claimed arrear of the amount which was reduced mentioning there was no consideration. Court ruled that both parties were aware of the conditions prevailing, which passed away and promise did not extend further than those circumstances. The promise was however binding for the period of the war.