White v Bluett (1853)

Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber

Facts: Mr Bluett had lent money to his son. Upon Mr Bluett’s death, the executor of his estate, Mr White, sought repayment of the outstanding debt. The son claimed that his father had promised he would not need to repay the debt if he stopped complaining about the way Mr Bluett intended to distribute his property among his children in his will. The son argued that his promise to stop complaining formed part of the agreement to discharge the debt.

Issue: Whether the son's promise to stop complaining about the distribution of his father's property constituted valid consideration for the discharge of the debt.

Held: The Court of Exchequer Chamber ruled in favor of the executor, holding that there was no valid consideration to discharge the debt. The court reasoned that the son's promise to stop complaining was not sufficient consideration because he had no legal right to complain about how his father chose to distribute his property. A promise to refrain from something one has no right to do cannot be considered valid consideration.

Key Judicial Statement: Chief Baron Pollock stated, "The son had no right to complain, for the father might make what distribution of his property he liked; and the son’s abstaining from doing what he had no right to do can be no consideration." Baron Alderson further added that a valid contract must have consideration on both sides, rejecting the idea that the mere existence of an agreement could substitute for consideration.

💡Leveluplaw: This case reinforces the principle that consideration in contract law must be tangible and legally sufficient. A promise to refrain from doing something one has no legal right to do, such as complaining without legal grounds, cannot constitute valid consideration. The decision also serves as a reminder that contracts must have actual consideration, rather than being based on mere agreements or expectations, and that not all promises or actions can give rise to binding legal obligations.