Talk:Consideration in English law

message: This article was listed for cleanup by Wikipedia. I have undertaken a major cleanup of this article but it probably could do with more tweaking. At least it is beginning to look as if it might be a Wikipedia article. Since I have had enough of this project, I invite others to wade in and improve it further. MPLX/MH 06:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: * Do Not Merge I would go as far as to say that there should be separate articles for each jurisdiction when a certain area of law is being covered. To cover all the nuances in a doctrine between jurisdictions would make an individual article too big and unwieldy.Thehappyhobo (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: See talk:consideration for this. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another merger proposal

message: The article currently states:
"Consideration for a particular promise exists where some right, interest, profit or benefit accrues (or will accrue) to the promisor as a direct result of some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promisee."
As per Tweddle v Atkinson, I think the first part of this is misleading. I think it should say:
"Consideration for a particular promise exists where the promisee agrees to give, suffer or undertake some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility in exchange for the promise."
Does anyone disagree (or have a better formulation of the principle)? Westmorlandia (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration does not need to go to the promisor 

message: The "Certainty" section currently reads:
"Consideration is sufficient where it amounts to something that is capable of expression in economic terms. In White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36, Bluett, when sued by his father’s executors for an outstanding debt to his father, claimed that his father had promised to discharge him from it in return for him stopping complaining about property distribution. The Court held that the cessation of complaints was of no economic value; thus, Bluett’s father had received no real consideration for the promise, and the debt was unenforceable at law."
This doesn't seem to be anything to do with certainty, but with the nature and sufficiency of consideration. I think that perhaps this is a question of amending the title rather than the wording but, sgain, please let me know if I am missing something. I hate to think that the marks of the students above who are relying on this article may be suffering as a result of inaccuracies here... Westmorlandia (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably accurate (though maybe ambiguous); the uncertain terms of White v Bluett in question led it to being classed as unsatisfactory consideration; any promise or consideration given must be certain in the conferred benefit. RichsLaw (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Though I do think the article in general could do with a good rewrite, and some citing of sources. The focus of it doesn't seem to be very theory based. RichsLaw (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty 

message: There are currently at least three pages on this topic, with some inevitable overlaps. They are this page Consideration under English law, plus Consideration under American law, and Consideration . I suggest that the Consideration  page becomes a much shorter summary page, with directions to the other two, which then survive with improvements. This page,  "Consideration under English law" page needs a lot of work! (I'll post a version of this message on the other pages). Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalisation of consideration pages