Chloe agrees to sell her old bicycle to Dan for £1 because she wants to be rid of it. Dan later argues the contract fails for want of consideration. What is the position?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
- Step 1: Chappell v Nestlé held that consideration must have some value but courts do not weigh its adequacy.
- Step 2: A real payment of £1 is sufficient, and the agreement is enforceable.
Answer
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
Why not the others: Courts do not require adequacy; deeds do not need consideration, but this is a simple contract; equal value is not required.
Practise more Further contract topics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed SQE1 (Solicitors Qualifying Examination) mock tests.
More Further contract topics questions
- A vendor writes 'I will sell you my house for a fair price to be agreed'. The parties never agree a price. Why will the agreement most likel…
- In a contract that is silent on the point, a court will imply a term in fact only when what test is met?
- A bank sends its customer a standard form with a fee term hidden in small print. Under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, when may a te…
- Which describes the expectation measure of contract damages?
- Sam signs a loan document without reading it, relying on a friend's statement that it is a gift. In fact it is a mortgage. He is literate. C…
- In Etridge terms, in which relationship will the law presume undue influence without proof of actual influence?