SQE1 consideration: what you must know and how it is tested

SQE1 consideration questions test whether a promise is enforceable because something of value was given in exchange. The rules are mainly case law, and the exam usually tests past consideration, existing duties and part payment of a debt. Read it with the wider Contract Law guide.

SubjectContract Law (FLK1)

Key lawCommon law; LP(MP)A 1989, s1

Question typeSingle best answer, five options

The rules to apply

Consideration is a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee, given in exchange for the promise. It must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas; Chappell v Nestle), so a peppercorn will do. It must move from the promisee. A promise made by deed needs no consideration (the formalities for a deed are in LP(MP)A 1989, s1).

Past consideration is not consideration (Re McArdle; Roscorla v Thomas). The exception, Lampleigh v Brathwait, applies where the act was done at the promisor's request, both understood it would be rewarded, and the later promise would have been enforceable if made in advance (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long).

Performing an existing duty. A duty imposed by law or public duty is not good consideration, but doing more than the duty requires is (Collins v Godefroy; Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan CC). A promise to perform an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor was held not to be good consideration in Stilk v Myrick. Williams v Roffey Brothers relaxed this: a promise of extra payment is enforceable if the promisor had reason to doubt the other party would finish, obtains a practical benefit, and there was no economic duress or fraud.

Part payment of a debt. Under Foakes v Beer, a promise to accept less than the whole debt is not supported by consideration, and Re Selectmove confirms that Williams v Roffey does not apply to a promise to accept less. Promissory estoppel (Central London Property Trust v High Trees) can bar the creditor from going back on the promise if it is clear, the debtor relied on it, and it would be inequitable to go back. It is usually suspensory, and a shield not a sword (Combe v Combe).

Traps examiners use

Judging whether the value is adequate. Only sufficiency matters.
Treating a later promise to pay for a favour as enforceable. It is past consideration unless the Lampleigh test is met.
Applying Williams v Roffey to a promise to take less than the debt.
Using promissory estoppel to create a new cause of action.
Forgetting that a deed removes the need for consideration.

Worked question 1

Kestrel Homes agrees to build an extension for Anna for £100,000. Part way through, Kestrel tells Anna it under priced the job and may not be able to finish. Anna needs the work done on time or she will lose her buyer, so she offers to pay £112,000. Kestrel makes no threat and finishes the work. Anna later refuses to pay the extra £12,000. Which statement is correct?

A. Anna's promise is unenforceable because Kestrel gave no new consideration.
B. Anna's promise is enforceable because she obtained a practical benefit from completion, applying Williams v Roffey Brothers.
C. Anna's promise is unenforceable because all variations need a deed.
D. Anna's promise is enforceable only if it is in writing.
E. Anna's promise is enforceable because promissory estoppel prevents her relying on the original price.

Answer: B. Under Williams v Roffey Brothers, a promise of extra payment for performing an existing contractual duty is enforceable if the promisor obtains a practical benefit and there is no economic duress or fraud. A reflects Stilk v Myrick, the older rule. C and D invent formalities, and E misuses estoppel.

Worked question 2

Stan owns a shop. Without being asked, his neighbour Eve spends a weekend moving his stock to safety from a flood. A week later Stan says, 'I'll pay you £500 for that.' He refuses to pay. Is Stan's promise enforceable?

A. Yes, because Eve's work was valuable.
B. No, because the work was past consideration and was not done at Stan's request.
C. Yes, because the promise is clear and in words.
D. No, because a promise to pay for work needs a deed.
E. Yes, because Eve suffered a detriment.

Answer: B. The work was complete before the promise and Stan did not ask for it, so Lampleigh v Brathwait does not apply. Value does not matter, as consideration must be given in exchange for the promise. D wrongly requires a deed. A, C and E ignore the timing.

Checklist before you move on

Is there a benefit or detriment given in exchange?
Is it sufficient (not necessarily adequate)?
Is it past? If so, apply Lampleigh and Pao On.
Existing duty: public, owed to promisor, or owed to a third party?
Part payment of a debt: Foakes v Beer and estoppel.
Could the promise be made by deed?

Test yourself on more original questions in our SQE1 practice questions.

Try a free SQE1 question

Questions

Does consideration need to be adequate?

No. It must be sufficient, meaning legally recognised as value, but the court does not weigh whether the exchange is fair.

Is part payment of a debt good consideration for forgiving the rest?

Not under Foakes v Beer. Promissory estoppel may stop the creditor going back on the promise if the debtor relied on it.

When is past consideration enforceable?

When the act was done at the promisor's request, both understood it would be rewarded, and the promise would have been enforceable if made in advance.

Sources: SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (from 1 September 2026); Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989; Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Checked 10 November 2026.