2. Adequacy and Sufficiency: There is a saying that: "Consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient". This means that the consideration provided doesn't have to value the other thing as the courts aren't interested in the merits of a bargain - just the bargain itself. Case: "Thomas v Thomas". In this case the £1 a year rent to stay in the marital home wasn't adequate but it was sufficient. However it must be...
- 1. Real ... a promise cannot be too vague - Case: "White v Bluett". In this case a son owed his father money but they made an agreement that it would be waived so long as the son didn't complain and "bore him with complaints". It was held boring the father with complaints was too vague
- 2. Tangible ... Case: "Ward v Byham". In this case the promise to keep a child "well and happy" was tangible ... father had to pay.
- 3. Economic Value ... Case: "Chappel v Nestle". In this case Nestle paid the copyright holder 7.5p and 3 chocolate bar wrappers for each record sold. It was held the 7.5p and 3 chocolate wrappers amound to good consideration on their own.
AO2: Lord Somervell famously said "A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration if it's established the promisee doesn't like pepper and throws away the corn". "Ward v Byham" can be criticised as "well and happiness" seems intangible and isn't easily distinguishable ... not indifferent to boring someone. However both were decided differently due to Lord Denning's decision in "Ward v Byham". Lord Denning doesn't favour the principle of consideration.