Was there a consideration in Merritt v Merritt case agreement?
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_v_Merritt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Merritt v Merritt</a> case is often used in teaching Contract Law for demonstrating one of the six elements of contract — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_create_legal_relations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intention to create legal relations</a> (the parties had been separated and the agreement was in writing which demonstrated the intention to create legal relations).</p>

<p>What, however, puzzles me is that one of the other essential elements of contract — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">consideration</a> — does not appear evident in this case: Mr. Merritt agreed to pay monthly allowance and to eventually transfer the house to Mrs. Merritt. But <strong>what did Mr. Merritt get in return?</strong></p>

<p>The judge said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... Next he said that there was no consideration for the agreement. That
  point is no good. The wife paid the outstanding amount to the building
  society. That was ample consideration. It is true that the husband
  paid her £40 a month which she may have used to pay the building
  society. But still her act in paying was good consideration.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, essentially, Mrs. Merritt acted as an <em>agent</em> by taking money from Mr. Merritt and using a portion of it to pay their joint mortgage. Was this "service" considered an "ample" consideration? Would it be considered so nowadays?</p>

<p>Almost anything is good consideration for a contract (even a peppercorn) - they only real exception is something that a party was already obliged to do by law or contract.</p>

<p>Even if <em>all</em> Mrs Merrit did was act as agent, literally taking the money directly from Mr Merrit and depositing it in the building society, that service is <em>itself</em> good consideration.</p>

contract-law common-law case-law legal-citation