White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36

Facts

• The case concerned a dispute between a son (Bluett Jr.) and the executor (White) of his deceased father’s (Bluett Sr.) estate.
• Bluett Sr. had lent money to his son, with the debt memorialized by a promissory note.
• The son claimed that his father had promised not to enforce repayment of the note if the son refrained from complaining about the distribution of his father’s estate.
• After Bluett Sr.'s death, the executor sought to recover the debt from the son.
• The son’s defense was based on the alleged agreement that his promise not to complain constituted sufficient consideration to release him from the debt.
• The matter was heard before the Court of Exchequer Chamber.

Issues

1. Whether the son’s promise to abstain from complaining about his father’s distribution of property amounted to valid consideration sufficient to discharge the debt.
2. Whether a promise not to do something, which the promisor had no legal right to do, could constitute valid consideration in contract law.

Decision

• The court held that the son’s promise to refrain from complaining did not amount to valid consideration.
• It was determined the son had no legal right to complain about the distribution of his father's property; thus, his abstention was not a forfeiture of a legal right.
• The court concluded there was no benefit to the promisor (the father) or detriment to the promisee (the son) arising from this promise.
• The supposed agreement was characterized as a vague familial arrangement, insufficient to constitute a legally binding contract.
• The debt under the promissory note remained enforceable.

Legal Principles

• Consideration in contract law must involve either a legal benefit to the promisor or a legal detriment to the promisee.
• Forbearance is valid consideration only where one gives up a legal entitlement.
• A promise not to do something which one has no legal right to do cannot be sufficient consideration.
• Domestic or familial promises are unlikely to be enforced absent a clear intent to create legal relations.
• Value exchanged as consideration must be recognized as real and legally sufficient, not merely nominal or illusory.

Conclusion

White v Bluett establishes that for consideration to be valid in contract law, it must involve a real legal benefit or detriment. A promise to abstain from actions one has no right to undertake, such as complaining about another's lawful disposition of property, does not constitute consideration and will not render a debt unenforceable. The case remains a key authority on the requirement for legally sufficient consideration and the non-enforceability of vague or purely domestic promises.