Legal Case Summary
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950; 109 ER 1040
Performance of an existing duty is no consideration.
Facts
Godefroy, the defendant, brought an action against an attorney for negligence and caused Collins, the plaintiff, to be subpoenaed to attend and give evidence. Godefroy was keen to ensure that Collins attended as this would help his case, so he promised to pay him one guinea per day he was at court as compensation for the loss of his time. Collins attended court for six days but was not called to give evidence. At the end of this Collins demanded payment of six guineas as per the agreement. When this was not paid, he brought an action against the defendant for the sun owing.
Issue
The question for the court was whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was supported by valuable consideration.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that the agreement that the plaintiff’s should attend court was not supported by consideration. This was because the plaintiff was under a public duty to attend court anyway having been subpoenaed. The law would not allow someone to recover expenses incurred in the performance of a duty that they were merely obliged to do anyway by law. Lord Tenterden said (at 956):
‘If it be a duty imposed by law upon a party regularly subpoenaed, to attend from time to time to give his evidence, then a promise to give him any remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration. We think that such a duty is imposed by law’.
Consequently, the agreement was unenforceable.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Collins v Godefroy (1831) continues to be recognised as a leading authority on the principle that performance of an existing public duty does not constitute good consideration in contract law. The case is still regularly cited in English contract law textbooks and taught as part of the law of consideration on undergraduate law courses.
Students should note that the broader doctrine of consideration, including the existing duty rule, has been the subject of significant judicial development since 1831. In particular, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 modified the rule as it applies to existing contractual duties (as distinct from public duties), holding that practical benefit can constitute consideration in that context. However, this modification does not affect the principle in Collins v Godefroy itself, which concerns a public legal duty imposed by subpoena rather than a pre-existing contractual obligation. The rule that performance of an existing public duty cannot found consideration remains good law.
