A promise made to you will not necessarily be enforceable

A promise made to you will not necessarily be enforceable Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . A promise made to you will not necessarily be enforceable Consideration means that a promise made to you will not necessarily be enforceable in the courts unless you can establish that you have  given something  for it. Suppose I promise to deliver a ton of gravel to you next week – you get your shovel and barrow ready, and I don’t turn up. I probably would not be liable to you in damages, because you haven’t given anything in return, and merely getting your barrow ready would not be sufficient reliance to make it enforceable. However, if at the time of making the arrangement, you said that you would pay me $10 per ton for the gravel that would be sufficient consideration.  A promise to pay  is sufficient to count as  giving something, even though the promise is not to be put into effect for some time yet.’’ What is Constitute Consideration? Consideration is one of the three essential elements of a valid contract. A promise is made withou t consideration; it does not constitute a valid contract and cannot be enforced in law. Only the contract that has valuable consideration is a valid contract. In a common promise unconfirmed by consideration is not a binding contract. A promise is give without consideration but is intended by the parties to affect an existing contract between them which has been acted upon by one party, and then such promise may be used as a defence by the party to enforce the existing contract. Valuable consideration has been defined as some right, interest, profit or benefit accuring to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other at his request. Consideration may be executed or executor, but it may not be past, it need not be adequate, but it must be of some value; and it must move from the promise. In the case of Thomas v Thomas (1842) 114 ER 330, QB, the court held that even though the payment of  £1 a year towards the ground-ven t was a very small sum, it was a valuable consideration and enough to complete the contract. Consideration must be clearly associated with the promise, and past consideration is generally unacceptable. In the case of Re McArdle (1951) 1 All ER 905, CA, the occupants of a house carried out various repairs and improvement, and after the work was complete the beneficial owners of the house promise to pay for this work. They did not pay and the occupants sued. The court of an application held that the consideration for the promise was past and there was no contract. In another way, the occupants failed in the suit because the beneficial owners of the house made the promise after the work was complete. In another case Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) 80 ER 255, Common Bench said that D asked P to get him a royal pardom. P successful in obtaining to pay him  £100. The majority of breach held that where D makes a request that P does his same service is performed, D promises to pay for it th e promise and the request go together and there is a binding contract. However, the performance of an existing duty cannot constitute consideration. In the case of Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040, KB, D’s subpoena P as a spectator. In court and promise to pay him some fee for his time. D did not pay, in the court held that since the subpoena compulsory a legal duty on P to appear at court, this cannot constitute consideration.