Ward v Byham
Doing more than an existing statutory duty requires can be good consideration.
Facts
Mr Byham and Miss Ward lived together unmarried and had a daughter. After they separated, the father wrote to the mother that he would pay her £1 a week to maintain the daughter, provided the child was well looked after and happy and was allowed to decide for herself whether she wanted to live with her mother. The mother, as the mother of an illegitimate child, was under a statutory duty to maintain her. When the mother later married another man, the father stopped paying, and the mother sued.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the father's promise was enforceable. Morris and Parker LJJ held that, by promising to ensure that the child was well looked after and happy and had a choice about where to live, the mother had undertaken to do more than her statutory duty required, which was good consideration. Denning LJ went further, saying that a promise to perform an existing duty is itself good consideration, because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given, but this wider view has not been generally adopted.
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
- Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
- 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
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.
