Contract Law: Consideration Issues in Shanessa's Venue Case Study

This case study analyzes the legal concept of consideration within contract law, using a scenario involving a live music venue owner, Shanessa, and her agreements with a printer (Lesley), a band (Terminator), and a lighting engineer (Nicky). The analysis examines whether valid consideration exists in each of the agreements, considering issues such as existing contractual duty, past consideration, and the sufficiency of consideration. The case references key legal precedents like Stilk v Myrick, Williams v Roffey Bros, and Lampleigh v Brathwait to determine the enforceability of Shanessa's promises to pay additional amounts to Lesley and Nicky, as well as the band Terminator. The document defines consideration, examines its components, and provides a rationale for the legal outcomes in each scenario.

Revision - Consideration
Shanessa has just opened a large new live music venue. She decided that the net
proceeds of the first band performance would be donated to the Student Union of the
local university towards refurbishment of its bar.
Shanessa contracted with Lesley, in charge of a small printing business, for the
printing of some posters and hand bills at a fixed price of 500, the work was to be
completed no later than 14 days before the concert date.
Terminator, a well known band (whose lead singer Ziggy is also a graduate of the
local university) was invited to perform at the venue by Shanessa and they were told
about the donation of the proceeds. In response Terminator told Shanessa that they
would play. There was no mention at all of any payment to the band.
A few weeks later, but still before the date of the concert Lesley informed Shanessa
that without a further 150 she would not be able to complete the printing on time
due to increases in the cost of paper. Since it was too late to contract with another
printer Shanessa promised to pay Lesley the extra cash in return for her promise to
complete the work on time in accordance with their contract, which she did. Just
before the first performance Shanessa discovered that the lighting engineer Nicky
was upsetting her staff by being gobby and argumentative. As a result Shanessa
promised Nicky a bonus of 50 to work without being so miserable. In the end, the
performance went well.
Subsequently, having heard that Terminator had turned down a lucrative
engagement in order to appear, Shanessa promised to pay the band 500.
Shanessa has now decided not to pay Lesley and Nicky the extra amounts.
Moreover, she has also decided not to pay the band Terminator.

• Issues:
• Definition of consideration and rationale
• Performing existing contractual duty
• Past consideration
• Sufficiency of consideration
Question requires whether there is consideration given in the agreements with
the 3 parties
• Consideration defined as:
‘An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the
price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the
promise thus given for value is enforceable.’
 Only be the case if promises acts or promise given is in return for an
exchange for the others promise and at the other parties request (either
express or implied)
LESLEY
 Existing contractual duty
 General rule is
 Where A makes a promise to B in return for B’s promise to
perform his existing contractual duty = NOT consideration
 Stilk v Myrick – No consideration however stated in that case
 If sailors had done more than their contractual obligation that could
NOT be reasonably brought within the terms of the original
contract then sailors could claim
 This applied in Hartley v Ponsonby
 Confirmed and refined in Williams v Roffey Bros
 Held:
1. Where A has contracted to do work for or supply
goods or services to B in return for payment B AND
2. Prior to A completing performance of his obligations,
B has reason to doubt whether A would be able to
complete his performance AND

3. B promises A an additional payment in return for A’s
promise to perform his contractual duty on time AND
4. B’s promise has not been made as a result of fraud or
duress by A AND as a result of promising this
additional payment B obtains a ‘practical benefit’ or
avoids a disbenefit THEN
5. This benefit capable of being sufficient consideration
for B’s promise of extra payment –As result
enforeceable
 Has S gained benefit – Yes printing done on time and saved hassle of
finding another printer who could do work on time
TERMINATOR
 No mention of money at agreement stage – promise of £500
 Can T claim the money?
 Seen as past consideration – not enforceable
 Re McArdle
 However there is an exception to general rule where a past act may be
consideration for the promise
 Lampleigh v Brathwait
 Held: sufficient consideration if
1. Promisor requests the act
2. Assumed and understood that payment would be made

3. Payment would have been enforceable if made in advance
 Application here S requested act and promise would have been
enforceable if made in advance
 ? whether assumption of payment
 Very difficult to satisfy – here S may think that at time of agreement that
band play for free
NICKY
Is the £50 enforceable
 Know that consideration has to be sufficient – Mountford v Scott
 Cts not enforce promises only bargains
 Rule is consideration NOT sufficient unless it is of some value and not
empty or illusory
 Chappell v Nestle - wrappers
 White v Bluett
 Apply White v Bluett