Legal Case Summary
Currie v Misa (1874) LR 10 Ex 153
Consideration in the formation of a contract.
Facts of Currie v Misa
Lizardi & Co. sold a number of bills of exchange to Mr. Misa, drawn from a banking firm owned by Mr. Currie, and were to be paid on the next day. However, Lizardi was in substantial debt to Mr. Currie’s bank and was being pressed for payment. A few days later, upon paying in the cheque, Mr. Mirsa learned of Lizardi’s stopped payments and outstanding debts, instructing his bankers not to honour the cheque. The question arose as to whether the cheque was payable, particularly as to whether the sale of an existing debt formed sufficient consideration for a negotiable security, so as to render the creditor to whom it was paid, Mr. Currie, a holder for the value of the cheque.
Issue in Currie v Misa
The question arose as to whether the existing debt constituted sufficient consideration for the security so as to constitute a legally-enforceable contract for the creditor.
Decision / Outcome of Currie v Misa
The Court held that consideration must “consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” (p 162). Thus, there can be no legal contract unless there is consideration in the form of a benefit gained, or detriment suffered arrangement by the parties. On the facts, the Court held that the title of a creditor to a negotiable security on account of a pre-existing debt and transferred to him, bona fide, without any notice of infirmity of title by the debtor is indefeasible. The pre-existing debt did not in and of itself form a sufficient consideration for the negotiable security. Accordingly, there was an absence of any consideration or the making or payment of the cheque by Mr. Mirsa.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the historic legal position established in Currie v Misa (1874) LR 10 Ex 153. The definition of consideration articulated by Lush J — that consideration consists in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other — remains the foundational definition applied in English contract law and continues to be cited in textbooks and judgments.
Readers should note, however, that the law of consideration has been significantly developed and refined by subsequent case law, including Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, and MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2018] UKSC 24. This article does not address those developments. It is also worth noting that law reform bodies, including the Law Commission, have at various points considered reform of the doctrine of consideration, though no legislative reform has been enacted. This article should therefore be read as a foundational case summary only, and students should consult broader contract law materials for the current state of the law on consideration.
