Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

Facts

• The case involved a contractual dispute between a mother (claimant) and the father (defendant) of their illegitimate child.
• The father promised to pay the mother £1 per week on condition that the child was “well looked after and happy.”
• At the time of the agreement, the mother was legally obligated under section 42 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to care for her illegitimate child.
• The father had no legal duty to provide care for the child under the relevant law.
• The father ceased making the promised payments, prompting the mother to bring an action for breach of contract.
• The central controversy was whether the mother’s fulfillment of her statutory obligation could act as valid consideration for the father’s promise to pay support.

Issues

1. Whether the mother’s adherence to her statutory duty to care for her child constituted valid consideration to enforce the father’s promise of payment.
2. Whether performance of an existing legal duty can amount to consideration where that performance benefits the promisor or exceeds the minimum required by law.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the mother’s undertaking to keep the child “well looked after and happy” constituted valid consideration for the father’s promise.
• The court reasoned that, although the mother was already under a statutory obligation to care for her child, her commitment went beyond this minimum duty by promising a higher standard (“well looked after and happy”).
• Lord Justice Denning emphasized that fulfillment of a pre-existing legal duty could constitute consideration if it benefited the promisor beyond the basic legal obligation.
• The father was found liable to continue the promised weekly payments to the mother.

Legal Principles

• Performance of an existing legal or statutory duty may constitute good consideration if it confers an additional benefit upon the promisor or surpasses basic legal requirements.
• Consideration does not always require a detriment to the promisee; a benefit conferred on the promisor may suffice.
• The decision marked a departure from the strict approach that a pre-existing duty cannot amount to consideration, clarifying that going beyond the mere legal minimum or providing a benefit to the promisor are valid bases for consideration.
• The distinction between public duty (as in Collins v Godefroy and Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v Glamorgan County Council) and private arrangements is relevant to determining the sufficiency of consideration.

Conclusion

Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 established that the performance of a pre-existing legal duty can amount to valid consideration when it provides an additional benefit to the promisor or involves exceeding the minimum statutory requirement, thereby refining the doctrine of consideration in contract law.