# Consideration: the bargain requirement

> **Key takeaway:** Simple contract needs consideration (benefit/detriment; sufficient not adequate — Nestlé). Not past (limited exceptions). Existing duty: often insufficient unless extra or practical benefit (Williams v Roffey) without duress. Part-payment of debt: Foakes v Beer still central. Deeds do not need consideration.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/consideration
- **Keywords:** consideration, Williams v Roffey, Foakes v Beer, past consideration, practical benefit, variation of contract, sufficient not adequate

## What is this about?

Consideration is the common-law requirement that a simple contract (as opposed to a deed) is supported by something of value in the eye of the law moving from the promisee. Most formation disputes turn less on the abstract definition and more on whether past consideration counts, whether performance of an existing duty is good consideration, and how variation of contracts is treated after Williams v Roffey and related authorities.

## What is the core rule?

A promise under a simple contract is generally enforceable only if supported by consideration: a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee that is sufficient (recognised by law) though it need not be adequate (commercially equivalent). Consideration must move from the promisee, must not be past (subject to limited exceptions), and performance of an existing public or contractual duty is often not good consideration unless something extra is provided or the practical-benefit analysis in Williams v Roffey applies to a promise to pay more for the same contractual performance.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Is the instrument a deed (consideration not required) or a simple contract?
2. Has something of value in the eye of the law been provided by the promisee (benefit/detriment)?
3. Is the alleged consideration past, or was it given in response to a request with an understanding of reward (Lampleigh v Brathwait type exception)?
4. If the promisee is only performing an existing duty, is there additional consideration, or (for promises to pay more) a practical benefit to the promisor within Williams v Roffey, without duress?
5. For part-payment of a debt, remember Foakes v Beer: part-payment is generally not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance (subject to limited exceptions and ongoing debate around practical benefit in that context)

## Which authorities matter?

- **Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153** — Classic benefit/detriment formulation of consideration.
- **Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87** — Consideration need not be adequate; even trivial items can be sufficient if stipulated as part of the bargain.
- **Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1** — Practical benefit to the promisor from a promise to pay more for existing contractual performance can amount to consideration, provided there is no economic duress.
- **Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605** — Part-payment of a debt is not generally good consideration for a promise to discharge the whole debt; relationship with Williams v Roffey remains a live analytical issue in debt-variation cases.

## How does this apply in practice?

This note addresses common-law consideration for simple contracts under English law. It does not cover promissory estoppel (which may suspend rights but does not usually create a new cause of action), formal requirements for deeds, or statutory regimes that impose obligations without classic bargain analysis. When advising on variations, always check for duress and for whether the parties used a deed.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Confusing adequacy (courts do not revalue the bargain) with sufficiency (something of value in law)
- Treating past consideration as always fatal without checking request-plus-understanding-of-reward fact patterns
- Applying Williams v Roffey to part-payment of debt as if Foakes v Beer had been overruled — it has not
- Ignoring economic duress when a 'practical benefit' variation is extracted under pressure

## When would a practitioner use this?

Relevant when challenging or defending enforceability of a promise, especially contract variations, bonuses for completing existing work, or settlements of debts for less than the full sum.

## Quick reference

Simple contract needs consideration (benefit/detriment; sufficient not adequate — Nestlé). Not past (limited exceptions). Existing duty: often insufficient unless extra or practical benefit (Williams v Roffey) without duress. Part-payment of debt: Foakes v Beer still central. Deeds do not need consideration.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*