판결 이유
Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Even trivial items (such as chocolate bar wrappers) can constitute good consideration if they are part of the bargain, even if they have no intrinsic economic value.
사실관계
Nestlé offered gramophone records to consumers who sent in 1s 6d plus three chocolate bar wrappers. Chappell & Co, the copyright owners, argued the royalty payable should be based on the 'ordinary retail selling price', which Nestlé said was 1s 6d. The question was whether the wrappers formed part of the consideration.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held (by a majority) that the chocolate wrappers did form part of the consideration, even though Nestlé threw them away. Lord Somervell held that the wrappers were part of the consideration because they were a condition of the bargain — a customer who did not send wrappers did not get the record.
주요 인용문
"A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn."
— Lord Somervell
후속 처리
Remains a leading authority on the distinction between adequacy and sufficiency of consideration.