Collins v Godefroy [1831]

Court: High Court

Facts: Collins, the claimant (C), was subpoenaed to attend court as a witness in a case where Godefroy, the defendant (D), was a party. To ensure Collins’ attendance, Godefroy promised to pay him one guinea per day for his time. Collins attended court for six days but was not called to give evidence. Afterward, he demanded payment, but Godefroy refused, leading Collins to sue for the agreed-upon amount.

Issue: Whether the performance of an existing legal duty (i.e., attending court as a subpoenaed witness) could constitute valid consideration for a contract.

Held: The court found in favor of the defendant. Lord Tenterden CJ held that Collins was under a legal duty to attend court due to the subpoena, and therefore, his attendance could not be considered valid consideration for the promise of payment. Since the law already obligated Collins to perform this duty, the promise of compensation was without consideration, making the agreement unenforceable.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Tenterden CJ stated, “If it be a duty imposed by law upon a party regularly subpoenaed, to attend from time to time to give his evidence, then a promise to give him any remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration.”

💡Leveluplaw: This case establishes the principle that the performance of an existing duty imposed by law cannot constitute valid consideration for a contract. The decision reinforces the broader legal doctrine that a promise to perform a pre-existing legal obligation is insufficient to support a new contractual promise. In cases where an individual is already legally bound to perform a certain act, any promise to remunerate them for that act is considered a promise without valid consideration and, thus, unenforceable.