Ward v Byham [1956]
Share
Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 is a leading contract law case concerning the concept of consideration. It established that consideration need not be of financial value and conferring a benefit obligated under statute is good consideration.
An unmarried couple had a child together and lived together for five years. The father eventually expelled the mother from the house and sent the child to live with a neighbour, whom he paid £1 per week for the child's care. Later, the mother found a job as a live-in housekeeper and expressed a desire to have the child live with her. The father agreed to allow the daughter to live with the mother and promised to pay her £1 per week. The condition was that the mother ensured the child was well looked after and happy. Payments were made initially, but the father stopped when the mother remarried.
The father argued that the mother was already under an existing legal duty to look after and maintain the child, and therefore, she was not providing any consideration for the promise to make payment. The question was whether the mother had provided sufficient consideration for the father's promise.
The court held that the mother had indeed provided consideration for the promise. By agreeing to ensure the child was well looked after and happy, she went beyond her existing legal duty to maintain and care for the child. The court recognised that the mother's promise to provide a specific level of care and happiness constituted valuable consideration, and as a result, she was entitled to the payment agreed upon.
This case illustrates the concept of consideration in contract law. While parties are generally not obligated to provide new consideration for existing duties, the court found that the mother's promise to go beyond the basic duty of care and ensure the child's happiness constituted valid consideration. This case emphasises that consideration doesn't always have to be monetary or a new act but can involve doing more than what is legally required.
The decision reinforces the idea that promises made in exchange for going beyond existing legal duties can be enforceable in contracts. In this case, the mother's commitment to ensuring the child's well-being and happiness was recognised as valid consideration, entitling her to the agreed-upon payment from the father.
An unmarried couple had a child together and lived together for five years. The father eventually expelled the mother from the house and sent the child to live with a neighbour, whom he paid £1 per week for the child's care. Later, the mother found a job as a live-in housekeeper and expressed a desire to have the child live with her. The father agreed to allow the daughter to live with the mother and promised to pay her £1 per week. The condition was that the mother ensured the child was well looked after and happy. Payments were made initially, but the father stopped when the mother remarried.
The father argued that the mother was already under an existing legal duty to look after and maintain the child, and therefore, she was not providing any consideration for the promise to make payment. The question was whether the mother had provided sufficient consideration for the father's promise.
The court held that the mother had indeed provided consideration for the promise. By agreeing to ensure the child was well looked after and happy, she went beyond her existing legal duty to maintain and care for the child. The court recognised that the mother's promise to provide a specific level of care and happiness constituted valuable consideration, and as a result, she was entitled to the payment agreed upon.
This case illustrates the concept of consideration in contract law. While parties are generally not obligated to provide new consideration for existing duties, the court found that the mother's promise to go beyond the basic duty of care and ensure the child's happiness constituted valid consideration. This case emphasises that consideration doesn't always have to be monetary or a new act but can involve doing more than what is legally required.
The decision reinforces the idea that promises made in exchange for going beyond existing legal duties can be enforceable in contracts. In this case, the mother's commitment to ensuring the child's well-being and happiness was recognised as valid consideration, entitling her to the agreed-upon payment from the father.
