## 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.


White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36