O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (2018 8 ed).

enter image description here

The red underlines fit para. 31 of the judgment:

  1. In the present case the price for which R's promise was bought was the forbearance of the MOD to exercise its power to return him to unit. It could not be a promise that he would not be returned to unit, because, as their Lordships have already observed, the Crown was entitled to move him to another regiment and could not fetter its discretion by a contract having effect in private law [emboldening mine]. Whether there were any circumstances in which it could have created a legitimate expectation giving rise to rights against the Crown in public law is a matter which their Lordships need not discuss. But the actual forbearance was in their Lordships' opinion sufficient consideration to support the contract. In Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864) 2 Dr & Sm 289, 292 the bank demanded security for its loan in circumstances in which, as Sir Richard Kindersley V-C said, it would otherwise have enforced payment. It made no promise not to demand payment but:

"the [bank] did in effect give, and the defendant received, the benefit of some degree of forbearance; not, indeed, for any definite time, but, at all events, some extent of forbearance."

  • 1
    Note that the underlined sentence says "illegitimate", not "illegal" - they may have two very different meanings in this context (eg what is 'illegitimate' may not be 'illegal'). – Moo Apr 24 at 4:45
  • @Moo Thanks! I rewrote the title to fit the judgment. – Chrome Apr 24 at 5:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.