Consideration & intention
For a promise to be enforceable there must be consideration and an intention to create legal relations. These doctrines decide which bargains the law will support and are frequently tested through part-payment of debt and existing-duty scenarios.
What "Consideration & intention" covers
- Consideration must be sufficient (of some recognised value) but need not be adequate (need not match the other side's promise).
- Past consideration is not good consideration, subject to the exception where the act was done at the promisor's request and payment was implied.
- Consideration must move from the promisee, though it need not move to the promisor.
- Performance of an existing contractual duty is not usually good consideration, but conferring a practical benefit or avoiding a disbenefit can be (Williams v Roffey) — though this practical-benefit reasoning does not extend to part-payment of a debt, which remains governed by Foakes v Beer (Re Selectmove; MWB v Rock Advertising).
- Part payment of a debt does not discharge the whole debt (the rule in Pinnel's Case, affirmed in Foakes v Beer).
- Promissory estoppel can suspend or extinguish strict legal rights where a clear promise was relied on, but it is a shield not a sword.
- Agreements are presumed intended to be legally binding in commercial contexts and presumed not to be in social/domestic contexts, each presumption being rebuttable.
Key cases & statutes
The authorities and provisions most likely to matter for this subtopic:
How it's tested in SQE1
SQE1 uses single best answer questions: a short factual scenario, one precise question, and five options of which only one is the best answer on the law applied to the facts. For consideration & intention, expect to be asked what the correct legal position is, what a party may or must do, or which outcome follows — with more than one option looking arguable. Reading the facts carefully and eliminating the near-misses is the skill that earns the mark.
Where candidates lose marks
- Forgetting the practical-benefit exception in Williams v Roffey for existing-duty promises.
- Treating promissory estoppel as creating a fresh cause of action rather than defending against strict enforcement.
- Overlooking that domestic-context intention can be rebutted where parties are separating or dealing at arm's length.
Learn this subtopic in the course
A video lesson, notes and exam-style practice on consideration & intention.
FAQ
Is consideration & intention tested on SQE1?
Yes — consideration & intention is part of the SQE1 Contract syllabus (FLK1) and can appear in single best answer questions.
How is consideration & intention examined in SQE1?
SQE1 tests it by application: you're given a realistic scenario and choose the single best answer from five options. The focus is on using the law correctly, not reciting it — knowing the leading authorities (Currie v Misa (1875), Chappell v Nestle [1960]) helps.