Generally, consideration is precisely portrayed using the
conventional advantage and detriment approach, which is the most ideal approach
to authorise the agreement.

The most
simplistic way to define consideration is characterized in Currie v Misa (1875)
by Lush J as “Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one
party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered
or undertaken by other.”1

Consideration can also be defined as ‘the price for which
the promise of the other is bought’2both
parties either gain something (benefit) or lose something (detriment). A
contract is based on the exchange or promises by a promisor and a promisee, this
benefit or loss is referred to as consideration. Consideration is fundamental
to the development of any agreement made without deed. It recognises a deal or
contract from a gift.

 

Furthermore, according to Patteson J in Thomas v. Thomas (1842)
consideration must be “Something which is of some value in the eyes of the
law, moving from the plaintiff. It may be of some disadvantage to the claimant
or some benefit to the defendant.”3Moreover,
a one sided promise that is not supported by consideration is regarded as a
gift.

 

There are two types of considerations; the first type is
called ‘Executory Considerations’, whereby there is an exchange of promise or
obligations that are set to take place in the future, for e.g., a bilateral
contract where A promises to pay for goods delivered by B in the future whereas
if B fails to deliver the products, then A has the right to sue B, on the other
hand if B succeeds in delivering goods; his consideration becomes executed.4 A
second form of consideration is called ‘Executed Consideration’ this is where
one party makes a promise in exchange for an act from the other party, e.g. in
a one-sided contract where A offers £100 to anyone who finds her lost purse, if
B finds the purse and returns it, B’s consideration is executed.5

 

It is vital to examine whether sufficient consideration
implies that consideration ought to be adequate. Historically, the court
recognised legally sufficient advantage or detriment instead of factual benefit
and detriment. Therefore, it is self-evident, that consideration must be
sufficient, implying that it must be something of significant worth according
to law, however that does not mean it must be adequate. In Chappell and Co Ltd
v Nestle (1960) the factory guaranteed to send record to individuals who sent
in three chocolate wrappers and a postal request for 1 shilling 6d. This case
represents that benefit or detriment must be legitimately sufficient and that
the law is not focused on the financial estimation of the consideration.6 

 

The principle concentration is on the execution of existing
obligation. It is generally decided that performance of existing obligation
does not constitute to good consideration. In order for it to be estimated as
good consideration, new consideration ought to be given for the promisee. As
shown on account of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861), it is a general rule that
consideration must move from the promisee. Where consideration is not given,
the agreement would wind up plainly unenforceable.7 

 

A promise to play out an obligation that you are as of now
bound to do under general law does not constitute good consideration, as
practiced in Collins v Godefroy (1831). Here the defendant promised to pay
Collins, the observer for his participation to give proof in court. In any
case, Collins was at that point bound to give evidence by the court. Hence,
Collin had not given any thought to Godefroy’s promise.8
However, a promise to perform more than you are as of now bound to go under
general law will constitute good consideration, as demonstrated in Glasbrook
Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925) it was held that despite the fact that playing
out a statutory obligation could not be sufficient consideration, the
contribution of the police was past statutory prerequisites, and payment could
be asserted. 9 In
spite of the fact that the police will undoubtedly give adequate protection
without payment, if in specific conditions, at the demand of an individual,
they give a special form of protection outside the extent of their open
obligation they may request payment for it. 10

 

Moreover, there are circumstances where an existing
obligation can amount to good consideration, these are firstly, when a party
appears to be struggling to have the capacity to finish a task, and the other
party offers extra cash, without duress and the other party benefits from
urging the main party to finish the task. Secondly, where a party, in finishing
an errand, performs something in overabundance of what they were contractually
bound to do. In determining the sufficiency of consideration given by the
police, the courts might be all the more intensely impacted by public policy.
In Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd (1988),the court was asked
whether the administrations given by the police at Sheffield United Football
Club for the clubs home fixtures were ‘Special Police Services’ so that in the
event that they were given at the club’s demand the police could charge them
for it. However, the defendants argued that the police were only completing
their ordinary public obligations in providing protection and ensuring there
was peace. It was held that the defendants’ obligation was to keep lawfulness
inside their grounds, therefore, the police presence equalled to sufficient
consideration.11

Event 1 is a private birthday party held for Sues 21st
at the Cricket Club, for roughly 200 visitors. As the gathering will go ahead
until the early hours of the night, her parents want the reassurance of a
police presence to ensure that drunken uninvited members of the public from
clubs and bars around the town do not infiltrate the party as well as a hoard
of uninvited guests that may see the event on Facebook and decide to turn up,
causing disturbance. As the event is taking place on a bank holiday, the police
have been asked to be available to work additional hours. Since it is a private
gathering, Rita and Bob have requested for police surveillance between the
hours of 12:30 am and 3 am since there will not be any private stewards waiting
at the entrance. Some of the issues with this gathering are the fact that there
are an extremely high number of guests that are due to arrive; therefore the
police enforcement must always be on high alert as to protect the members of
the birthday party. Furthermore, since the party is also taking place in early
hours of the night there will be minimal light, hence, there is a higher
liability for accidents to occur which the police may also be required to intervene
in. This request goes beyond the existing contractual duties of an officer,
therefore, the police officers, may request a payment for their special police
services for the day.12

 

Event 2 is an FA Cup match between two reputable teams,
which is a public event. Hertford Town FC has been drawn against an expert team
from a substantially higher alliance, Blackwater FC. As Blackwater FC have notoriety
for hooliganism and there is a worry that they will cause inconvenience in neighbourhood
bars and at the football game. There is also a high likelihood that fans from different
clubs may also come into the town to stand up to Blackwater fans. Hertford Town
for the most part have two police officers on duty outside of the football
ground on the forecourt, as there are residencies and a few stables near the
ground available by means of an open pathway. The police additionally give a
car on the primary street to direct and avoid oncoming traffic. The club that is
stressed over the turmoil has requested for six officers inside the ground
notwithstanding the standard two outside the ground. This is what is usually
offered and what was given for the previous matches that took place over the
last three years. Moreover, the neighbourhood licensed victuallers association
that speaks to proprietors of authorised premises is stressed over the inconvenience
in the nearby bars and has asked the police ensure that there are extra
officers on duty in the town centres. As seen in Leeds united v Chief Constable
West Yorkshire Police (2013) were policing in the wider area surrounding the
football ground could not be charged as they were merely performing a public
duty to maintain law and order. The police officers that are patrolling outside
Hertford town football club to the surrounding licences victuallers association
are not obliged to get addition payment because they are merely acting on an
existing contractual duty.13

 

Last and foremost, the final event is a Charity Festival taking
place at the park for needy kids. As a result of the cause, the event has
pulled in some outstanding demonstrations. It is foreseen that Sunday will be a
casual family day and the Monday show a considerably more edgy undertaking.

Joanna, the chief executive is concerned that individuals
may abuse drugs at the concert taking place on Monday, thus she asked for the
police to be present on site and operate a mobile station to catch any drug
dealers. The police have also provided that some regular clothed (mufti)
officers might be used on both the Sunday and Monday as Joanna does not
tolerate drugs at all, the chief constable has additionally recommended that if
the portable station is utilised, it will be on both days.

While charitable events may by large be seen positively, we
must give careful consideration to their policy for charging for police
service. Some major events such as festivals require a significantly large number
of police officers and can create expansive sums.14
Under section 25 and 26 of the Police Act 1996, non-commercial events such as
charitable or community events can be liable to pay for the provision of
special police services.

 

In conclusion, the police officers are able to offer their time
both within their existing contractual duty and also as a performance of non-contractual
obligation whereby they offer their special police services. With regards to
each specific individual event taking place on the bank holiday weekend, there
are circumstances where there may be additional costs that need to be paid to
the officers for working additional hours outside of their contract.  Further information that may be required is
the timings of the events taking place over 26th, 27th
and 28th of May. Furthermore, there is no issue if the requested
execution can be described as one which goes past any prior obligation of duty
since the additional request is clear on their benefits and burdens.