Currie v Misa
The classic definition of consideration as a benefit to one party or a detriment to the other.
Facts
Lizardi & Co owed money to the London and Westminster Bank, of which Currie was a manager, on an overdrawn account. Lizardi gave the bank a cheque drawn by Misa, which Lizardi had received in return for bills of exchange. Before the cheque was paid, Lizardi failed, and Misa stopped payment of the cheque. The bank sued Misa on the cheque, and the question was whether the bank had given value for it, given that it had received the cheque in payment of an existing debt.
Legal principle
The court held that the bank had given value and could enforce the cheque, and the House of Lords affirmed the decision in (1876) 1 App Cas 554. Lush J gave the definition of consideration that is still quoted: a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Receiving the cheque in satisfaction of an existing debt was good consideration.
Related cases on consideration and promissory estoppel
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
- Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643
- Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
- D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
- Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
- Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270
- Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
