Word Count: 1000 Mr Marsden is concerned about his position in relation to the payment regarding the work carried out by Designer Decking (DD). Mr Marsden had negotiated with DD about the completion of work and it was concluded that an extra sum of £1000 was vital for the work to be completed by the 1st of July (Document 2) The first element is whether the extra £1000 is good consideration or not. If not then the extra sum of money would not be enforceable and this means that Marsden is not liable to pay this sum. One element that must be succeeded is that the consideration is either executory or executed, but it cannot be past consideration. This requires that there is an exchange of promises in relation to performance of both parties or where there is an act in return for a promise. In addition, it is not sufficient to buy the promise of another party as past consideration is no consideration; this can be seen in Roscorla v Thomas1 where it was held that a promise made after the service or sale had been completed was not good consideration. In regards to Marsden, his promise to pay the sum of £1000 was made before the work was fully completed, thus portrays that this is executed consideration as there was an act of finishing the work in return for the extra £1000. With good consideration, the parties must both bring something new to the bargain; the £1000 will be new but DD will carry the work out as originally agreed (Document 8) therefore this is not deemed as a new bargain. But in accordance with this, Lampleigh v Braithwaite2 added that past consideration can be good even when a 1 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 2 Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWCH KB J17 UP816968
promise to make payment came after performance, as the consideration was proceeded by a request. Thus making Marsden's extra sum enforceable. The second element of consideration is that consideration must move from the promisee, as the promisee is the party receiving the benefit. This has been emphasised in Tweddle v Atkinson3. The promisee can only enforce the promise against the promisor as it must have moved from him. Therefore the fact that the £1000 was agreed between Marsden and DD showed that the consideration had move from the promisor to the promisee. The final element of consideration is that it must be sufficient, but it does not need to be adequate. This means that the consideration provided by each side does not need to be equal in value. This is established though Chappell v Nestle Co Ltd4 where it was decided that some trivial act can be regarded as consideration as long as it has some economic value. Here the £1000 and the work done by DD have an economic value that benefits the other, the consideration is sufficient. The case of Stilk v Myrick5 provided that variation to an existing contract