D was sued by the executor’s of his father’s will for an outstanding debt. D claimed that his father had cancelled the debt in return for D’s agreement not to annoy his father with complaints about not receiving the same inheritance as his siblings. CA said no contract.
Pollock CB: To admit this as consideration would be to allow anything of negligible value to constitute consideration in which case the idea of a trade of benefits in a contract would be lost. Secondly, he says that the son had “no right to complain” since his father could do as he wished with his money, and therefore it would be absurd to construe it as consideration that the son would desist from something he had no right to do. The second argument is dodgy: his “right” is freedom of speech. The key point is that there is no value in an agreement not to whinge.