Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

KEY POINTS

• The father has the responsibility and a contractual promise to bring his child well. The issue concerns the father's promise to pay a weekly fee for his illegitimate child's upkeep based on the child's well-being, regardless of the mother's legal obligation to support the kid.

• The issue of fulfilling an existing duty can serve as valid compensation for a contract entered by the father.

FACTS

• The case revolves around an illegitimate child named Carol, born on October 28, 1950, to unmarried parents. The parents, Mildred (the mother) and an unnamed father, lived together for several years but separated in May 1954.

• After the separation, the father allowed Mildred to take custody of Carol, agreeing to pay Mildred £1 per week for the child's maintenance. The father's condition for the payment was that Carol must be well looked after, happy, and allowed to decide whether she wanted to live with her mother.

• The father discontinued the payments after Mildred married another man. Mildred brought legal action, claiming that the father should continue paying £1 weekly even after her marriage.

• The main legal question was whether there was valid consideration for the father's promise, given that Mildred was legally bound to maintain her child under the National Assistance Act 1948.

• The court held that there was good consideration for the father's promise, as he was providing a benefit by allowing the child to be with her mother, and the promise was binding as part of a unilateral contract. The court dismissed the father's argument that Mildred's legal obligation to maintain the child negated the consideration for his promise.

JUDGEMENT

• The judgment was in favour of the mother, Mildred. The court ruled that there was valid consideration for the father's promise to pay £1 per week for the maintenance of their illegitimate child, Carol, even though Mildred was legally bound to maintain the child under the National Assistance Act 1948.

• The court considered the father's promise part of a unilateral contract, where he promised to pay Mildred to look after the child in return. As long as Mildred fulfilled her obligation of caring for Carol, the father was obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount. Therefore, the court dismissed the father's argument that Mildred's pre-existing legal duty to maintain the child negated the consideration for his promise.

COMMENTARY

• This is a pivotal case in contract law, reinforcing that fulfilling an existing legal duty can be a valid contract consideration, providing a benefit to the promising party.

• The case highlights unilateral contracts, where a promise is exchanged for an act. The father's promise to pay for the child's care created a binding contract when the mother accepted by caring for the child.

• Despite the mother's legal duty to support her child, the court recognised the moral and social value of allowing the child to be with her. This acknowledgement validated the father's promise as a valid consideration.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff and his Defendant split up and Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant £1 per week to look after the child (previously he paid a neighbour to do this) and “keep the child happ”, but ceased payments after Defendant remarried.

• CA held that there was consideration and the contract was valid. 

Denning LJ

• A promise to perform an existing obligation (in this case caring for the child) is good consideration since it can still confer a benefit, since in this case the father is benefiting from not looking after the child himself. 

This seems to contradict the rule that in general social arrangements do not give rise to contracts.