Currie v Misa

判决理由

事实

The case arose out of dealings in a bill of exchange. A person to whom a bill had been indorsed and delivered sought to enforce it, and the question was whether that holder had given valuable consideration for the bill — in particular, whether an antecedent debt or a forbearance could amount to consideration — so as to be entitled to sue on it. Resolving that question required the court to define what counts as valuable consideration in law.

判决摘要

In the course of deciding whether the holder of a bill of exchange had given valuable consideration, Lush J gave what has become the classic judicial definition of consideration in English contract law: a valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or in some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Applying that test the court held that consideration had been provided, though the case is now cited overwhelmingly for the definition rather than for its particular outcome. The formulation captures the 'benefit and detriment' analysis of consideration and, together with the 'price of a promise' definition later given in Dunlop v Selfridge, remains the standard starting point whenever the existence of consideration is in issue.

关键引述

后续处理