Feedback

 

(b) That's right. There is probably not sufficient consideration here. The problem is that B is promising to do something that he is already legally obliged to do - pay the overdue rental to A. He is not giving anything of value in exchange for A's promise of the rent-free month. So even if B pays the $1,000 as promised, he cannot enforce A's promise. This is an important principle that sometimes leads to hard decisions.

Stilk v Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168.

Unhappy with the results of applying this principle to such cases, the courts have recently begun exploring ways of getting around this rule.