Why do some academics think the doctrine of consideration in English contract law is unnecessary?
Arguably consideration doesn’t really serve much of a purpose any more. 1. Consideration is only required where for enforceability where the contract is not a deed. The formalities for making a deed now amount to no more, in essence, than a signed contract, many contracts will be deeds, because they are signed. Relatively few will be subject to the requirement of consideration at all. 2. Some of the classical consideration issues – such as those rebellious sailors in Stilk v Myric, are now dealt with in more modern ways – such as economic duress. It is under those doctrines that a Stilk-like case would be decided today. Similar issues to do with debtors settling with their creditors. 3. Is consideration *really* necessary? There’s already the massive exception for deeds. Its main function appear to have been taken over by other less technical doctrines – intention to create legal relations, duress etc. Consideration is incredibly wide in scope. The doctrine of consideration has not alw
