Ward v Byham [1956]
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: An unmarried couple had a child and lived together for five years before the father expelled the mother from the house and sent the child to live with a neighbour, to whom he paid £1 per week for the child’s care. The mother later found a job as a live-in housekeeper and wanted the child to live with her. The father agreed and promised to continue paying £1 per week, provided the mother ensured the child was well looked after and happy. The father initially made the payments but stopped when the mother remarried. The father argued that the mother had a legal duty to care for the child under the National Assistance Act 1948, and thus, her actions did not constitute valid consideration for the promise.
Issue: Whether the mother’s promise to ensure the child’s well-being and happiness, in addition to her legal obligation to care for the child, constituted sufficient consideration for the father’s promise to pay £1 per week.
Held: The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the mother, holding that her promise to ensure the child’s happiness went beyond her existing legal duty and provided sufficient consideration for the father’s promise. The court concluded that her commitment to ensuring the child’s well-being, in addition to mere maintenance, amounted to good consideration.
Key Judicial Statement: Denning LJ stated, "I have always thought that a promise to perform an existing duty, or the performance of it, should be regarded as good consideration, because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given." He emphasized that even though the mother was legally required to care for her child, her promise to go beyond this duty and ensure the child was well looked after and happy was a benefit to the father, thus constituting valid consideration.
💡Leveluplaw: This case illustrates that consideration need not be monetary or involve a completely new act; going beyond one’s legal obligations can suffice. The decision establishes that even where a person is already legally obligated to perform a duty, the performance of that duty—especially when it involves a higher level of care or a specific promise—can be considered valid consideration in contract law. This case confirms that promises related to ensuring well-being, rather than mere maintenance, can enforce contractual obligations.