Re McArdle, [1951] Ch 669

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet inherits an old countryside property from her late aunt, which she plans to share with her two sisters. She pays a contractor to restore the roof and replace damaged windows, completing the renovations at her own expense. After these improvements are finished, Harriet discusses with her sisters the significant costs she incurred. Moved by Harriet’s financial outlay, the sisters verbally promise to contribute half of the repair expenses once the property is sold. However, they later refuse to pay, arguing that Harriet had finished the repairs before any promise was made.


Which of the following best reflects how the doctrine of consideration applies to the sisters’ promise to pay Harriet for the completed repairs?

Introduction

The principle of consideration represents a foundational element within the law of contract. It signifies that a promise or agreement must be supported by something of value moving from each party involved. A key aspect of this principle is that consideration must be either present or future; past consideration is not valid. Specifically, past consideration denotes an action or forbearance that has already occurred before a promise is made. To be legally enforceable, a promise must be given in exchange for a reciprocal promise or action made at the same time or subsequent to the promise. The English courts have consistently maintained that a past act or service, which has been completed before any promise was made in return, is insufficient to form valid consideration. Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669 serves as a definitive example of the application of the principle concerning past consideration, illustrating that a promise made after a service or action has been completed is not enforceable.

The Facts of Re McArdle

The case of Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669 arose from a family inheritance matter involving a house left by William McArdle to his five children, subject to a life interest for his widow. One of McArdle’s sons’ wives, Marjorie McArdle, carried out significant improvements to the house, incurring a cost of £488. These renovations were completed before any formal agreement was established. After the repairs were finished, Marjorie McArdle obtained a signed document from all five of William McArdle’s children. In this document, they promised to repay her the £488 from the eventual distribution of the estate, after the widow's death. Upon the widow’s passing, the other four sons refused to pay, leading Marjorie McArdle to attempt to enforce the promise through the courts. The essence of the dispute centered on whether the promise by the children was supported by valid consideration.

The Legal Issue

The critical legal issue within the Re McArdle case revolved around whether the improvements made by Marjorie McArdle to the house constituted valid consideration for the subsequent promise made by the children to repay her. Specifically, the question was whether work already done before a promise was made could be considered legal consideration. Marjorie McArdle argued that the signed document acted as an equitable assignment of each son's interest in the property, with the sum of £488 being payable to her from their share. The counter argument, raised by the other sons, was that the promise was in effect a gratuitous payment; the work was done prior to any promise and therefore there was no consideration present. The court had to determine if the work performed by Marjorie McArdle could amount to a consideration that would make the promise enforceable, or if it should be deemed past consideration, thus making the promise unenforceable.

Holding of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal in Re McArdle ruled against Marjorie McArdle, upholding the principle that past consideration is not good consideration. The court determined that the renovations carried out by her were completed before any promise to pay was made by her husband's siblings. Therefore, this work, which predated the promise, could not serve as valid consideration for that later promise. The court specifically stated that because the transaction was imperfect and incomplete, it could only be perceived as a mere promise to pay rather than a completed agreement. The judges emphasized that because no reciprocal obligation or inducement was made, the promise to pay was an unenforceable gift. The consequence of the decision was that Marjorie McArdle was unable to claim the promised sum because her actions were entirely in the past.

Implications and Analysis

The decision in Re McArdle provides an important illustration of the strict legal position regarding past consideration and its unenforceability. The ruling highlights that for a promise to be legally binding, it must be given in response to an action or promise that is either present or future. The principle applied in this case has shaped the jurisprudence concerning contract formation and consideration. It reinforces the requirement for a quid pro quo; that is, a reciprocal exchange of promises or actions at the time of contract creation, and makes it clear that a promise given after completion of a benefit does not generate a contractual obligation. The case demonstrates the importance of carefully establishing the terms of an agreement prior to the commencement of any actions, in order to guarantee that the party performing the services is entitled to payment.

Comparisons with Related Cases

To better understand the strict stance taken in Re McArdle, it is helpful to compare it with other cases involving the doctrine of past consideration. One key case is Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615), where the court found that a past action could support a later promise. In Lampleigh, the defendant asked the plaintiff to obtain a pardon, which the plaintiff did. Later, the defendant promised to pay him for his efforts. Unlike Re McArdle, the court in Lampleigh held that the promise was enforceable because the service was performed at the defendant's request. This established an exception to the past consideration rule, stating that an earlier request coupled with a later promise may constitute valid consideration. The distinction turns on the concept of implied understanding. Another illustrative case is Re Casey’s Patent (1892), where a promise made to a manager for work already done was found to be enforceable as it was understood there would be remuneration. Again, the crucial fact was that the service was performed in a business context, where payment was anticipated. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) further solidified this notion by stating that if the initial act was carried out at the request of the promisor, and it was understood that the act was to be rewarded, then a subsequent promise may be enforceable. These cases provide a contrast with Re McArdle, where there was no indication that Mrs McArdle was expecting payment or that the siblings had requested the renovations. The circumstances of Re McArdle fall squarely under the general principle that past consideration is not valid. The contrast highlights the requirement that the benefit must be provided in return for the promise of payment for valid consideration to be formed.

The Impact on Contract Law

The decision in Re McArdle is a significant contribution to contract law, providing a clear example of the application of the doctrine of past consideration. This decision has been frequently cited in subsequent cases involving consideration issues, and is consistently used to illustrate the limitations of a promise made after a service has been rendered. Re McArdle reinforces the requirement for mutuality in contracts; the idea that each party gives something in return for something else. Without this mutual exchange, the agreement will be legally unenforceable. The case has influenced how legal professionals advise clients on contract drafting and execution. The decision underscores that in order to have a legally binding agreement, the parties should agree and specify their obligations before any performance is carried out. It also demonstrates that while practicalities may sometimes be overlooked, the courts will strictly enforce the contractual rules for valid consideration to be found. This decision remains a relevant principle in the complex field of contract formation.

Conclusion

The case of Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669 provides a concrete illustration of the legal principle that past consideration is not good consideration. The Court of Appeal's judgment reinforces the fundamental requirement for mutuality within contracts, where a promise must be given in exchange for a present or future obligation to be binding. This distinguishes it from cases like Lampleigh v Braithwait, Re Casey’s Patent, and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, which created exceptions for prior requests and understood expectations of remuneration. By contrasting Re McArdle with these exceptions, the courts have further delineated the limitations of the principle. The decision from Re McArdle continues to serve as an authoritative statement on the essential elements of consideration, emphasizing the importance of clearly defining contractual terms and ensuring that there is a reciprocal exchange of promises or actions for an agreement to be enforceable, see McArdle (2000) for further analysis of the principle.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal