What is Consideration in Business Law?

What is Consideration in Business Law?

 Consideration, as defined by Sir Frederick Pollock in Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.

 
With regards to the exchange of the promises between the parties, it must be noted that:

t must be requested by the promisor
It is required that the benefit conferred or detriment suffered by the promisee must be requested by the promisor for it to be a valid consideration. As seen in the case of Combe v Combe (1951), the court held that the defendant’s promise was not supported by any consideration as the husband had not requested the wife to refrain.
​
AND

it must move from the promiseeThe law states that a person can only enforce a promise if the consideration for the promise is furnished by him, as in the case of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861), where the court held that the plaintiff could not enforce the contract as he was not a part to the contract and has not furnished any consideration. Consideration, however, need not move to the promisor.
 
The consideration provided must also not be a past consideration (if applicable, link it to the case!)
 

• The general rule is that past consideration is not good consideration, as seen in Roscorla v Thomas (1842). The rationale is that an act done prior to and independently of a promise cannot be regarded as valid consideration for the promise in question as it was not done in exchange for that promise.

• (unless the case talks about past consideration then bring in the exception!) However, an exception to this would be if the services originally performed were at the defendant’s request, and thus, it is not considered as past consideration. This is held in the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615), in which the court held that the plaintiff’s services had been procured by the defendant’s previous request, and thus, the later promise of $100 as a reward is supported by sufficient consideration. This is similarly illustrated in Pao On v Lau Yin Long (1980).