White v Bluett
A promise to stop doing something one has no legal right to do is not good consideration.
Facts
A son owed his father money under a promissory note. The son often complained that his father was distributing his property among his children unequally. After the father's death, his executor sued the son on the note. The son argued that his father had agreed to release him from the debt if he stopped complaining about the distribution of the father's property.
Legal principle
The court held that the son's promise to stop complaining was not good consideration, so he remained liable on the note. The son had no right to complain in the first place, and promising to stop doing something he was not entitled to do gave the father nothing of value in the eye of the law. Pollock CB said that the son had given no consideration in refraining from what he had no right to do.
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.
