Ward v Byham

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a claim for weekly maintenance payments of £1 in respect of an illegitimate child. The parents, the Plaintiff and Defendant, lived together unmarried for several years, during which time a daughter was born. After their separation in May 1954, the Defendant removed the child from the Plaintiff’s care, placing her with a neighbour and paying the neighbour £1 per week. The Plaintiff sought to regain custody of the child and requested maintenance payments from the Defendant. The Defendant replied by letter agreeing to allow the Plaintiff to have the child and to pay £1 per week provided the child was well cared for, happy, and able to decide whether to live with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff took the child into her care and maintained her until she married in February 1955, after which the Defendant ceased payments. The Plaintiff then brought this action claiming the continuation of the weekly payments.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was sufficient consideration to support the Defendant’s promise to pay £1 per week for the maintenance of the child.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s performance of a legal duty to maintain the child could constitute valid consideration for the Defendant’s promise.
3. Whether the Defendant’s promise created a binding unilateral contract enforceable by the Plaintiff.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant argued there was no consideration for the promise to pay £1 per week because the Plaintiff was performing only what she was legally obligated to do by maintaining the child.
• Reliance was placed on a statement from Crowhurst v. Laverack suggesting that performing an existing legal duty does not amount to valid consideration.
• The Defendant contended that the payments were a mere bounty, not a contractual obligation, especially since the Plaintiff had married and was no longer a single woman entitled to bring affiliation proceedings.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that despite the legal duty to maintain the child, the Defendant received a benefit by the child being cared for by the Plaintiff rather than a neighbour, constituting valid consideration.
• The Plaintiff maintained that the Defendant’s letter amounted to a unilateral contract—a promise in exchange for the Plaintiff’s act of caring for the child.
• She asserted that once she undertook the care of the child, a binding contract arose entitling her to the weekly payments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Crowhurst v. Laverack (8 Exchequer 208)	Performance of an existing legal duty does not constitute valid consideration.	The Defendant relied on a statement in this case to argue no consideration existed because the Plaintiff was performing a legal duty.
Hicks & Gregory (8 Common Bench Reports 378, 1849)	A unilateral contract arises from a promise in return for an act, creating binding obligations once the act is performed.	The court found this precedent supportive of the view that the Defendant’s promise constituted a unilateral contract enforceable by the Plaintiff upon her performance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognised that the Plaintiff was legally bound to maintain the child, while the Defendant had no such obligation. However, it held that the performance of an existing duty can constitute good consideration if it confers a benefit on the promisor. Here, the Defendant received the benefit of the child being cared for by the Plaintiff rather than a neighbour, which satisfied the requirement of consideration.

The Defendant’s letter was interpreted as a unilateral contract: a promise to pay £1 per week in exchange for the Plaintiff’s act of caring for the child. Once the Plaintiff undertook this care, the contract became binding. The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the payments were a mere bounty and not enforceable, emphasising the conditions set out in the letter regarding the child’s welfare and choice.

All judges concurred that the Defendant’s promise was supported by sufficient consideration and was therefore enforceable, dismissing the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was dismissed.

The court held that the Defendant’s promise to pay £1 per week to the Plaintiff for the maintenance of the child was supported by valid consideration and constituted a binding unilateral contract. The decision enforces the principle that performing a legal duty can amount to good consideration if it benefits the promisor. The ruling directly affects the parties by requiring the Defendant to honour the maintenance payments under the terms agreed. No broader precedent beyond the facts was established.