White v Bluett [1853]
Share
White v Bluett [1853] 23 LJ Ex 36 is a notable English contract law case that delves into the concept of consideration in the context of a dispute over repayment of a debt.
Mr Bluett had lent money to his son, and when Mr Bluett passed away, the executor of his estate, Mr White, sought to recover the outstanding debt from the son. The son, however, raised a defence, claiming that his father had promised him that he need not repay the money if he stopped complaining about how Mr Bluett would distribute his property in his will among the children.
Chief Baron Pollock held that there was no valid consideration for any discharge of the obligation to repay the debt. The son's promise not to complain was deemed to be an entirely intangible benefit, and as such, it lacked legal sufficiency as consideration.
Chief Baron Pollock dismissed the argument, stating that the son had no right to complain about the distribution of his father's property. The son's abstention from doing something he had no legal right to do could not be considered a valid consideration. Chief Baron Pollock expressed that if such pleas were allowed, it would lead to absurd and untenable results, as mere promises to refrain from complaining without a valid basis for complaint would be deemed binding.
Baron Alderson emphasised that for a contract to be valid, there must be consideration on both sides. He rejected the notion that the agreement itself could be considered as the consideration, stating that if that were the case, every contract would be a bare agreement without consideration (i.e. nudum pactum).
In summary, this case highlights the importance of tangible and legally recognisable consideration in contract law, rejecting the idea that a promise to refrain from complaining, without a valid basis for complaint, could constitute valid consideration.
Mr Bluett had lent money to his son, and when Mr Bluett passed away, the executor of his estate, Mr White, sought to recover the outstanding debt from the son. The son, however, raised a defence, claiming that his father had promised him that he need not repay the money if he stopped complaining about how Mr Bluett would distribute his property in his will among the children.
Chief Baron Pollock held that there was no valid consideration for any discharge of the obligation to repay the debt. The son's promise not to complain was deemed to be an entirely intangible benefit, and as such, it lacked legal sufficiency as consideration.
Chief Baron Pollock dismissed the argument, stating that the son had no right to complain about the distribution of his father's property. The son's abstention from doing something he had no legal right to do could not be considered a valid consideration. Chief Baron Pollock expressed that if such pleas were allowed, it would lead to absurd and untenable results, as mere promises to refrain from complaining without a valid basis for complaint would be deemed binding.
Baron Alderson emphasised that for a contract to be valid, there must be consideration on both sides. He rejected the notion that the agreement itself could be considered as the consideration, stating that if that were the case, every contract would be a bare agreement without consideration (i.e. nudum pactum).
In summary, this case highlights the importance of tangible and legally recognisable consideration in contract law, rejecting the idea that a promise to refrain from complaining, without a valid basis for complaint, could constitute valid consideration.
