Which of these two cases illustrate the rule that consideration need not be adequate but merely sufficient? A) Chapel v Hicks B) Foakes v Beer C) Thomas v Thomas D) Chapell & Co Ltd v Nestle

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Thomas v Thomas, the court held that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, as evidenced by the agreement to pay a nominal sum for the use of a property. In Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle, the court found that even wrappers from chocolate bars, which were of negligible value, constituted sufficient consideration for the purpose of a contract, again illustrating that consideration need not be adequate, just sufficient.

Which of These Two Cases Illustrate the Rule That Consideration