Paul Davies. JC Smith's The Law of Contract (2018 2 ed). pp. 77-78.
This post's title is based on the teal sentence marked by the red triangle (▲).
How isn't (▲) fulfilled by the two cases underlined in red? In other words, how aren't these two cases consideration?
2.1. An "implied promise to pay a reasonable sum" "is made before the act is done".
2.2. A "subsequent express promise to pay a particular sum, the consideration for which is the abandonment of the claim by the other party" contains, and thus must be "consideration"!
Please advise if I ought remove Anson's Law of Contract (2016 30 ed). p. 102.