{"id":4883,"date":"2018-03-07T09:26:55","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:26:55","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-09-06T09:16:31","modified_gmt":"2021-09-06T09:16:31","slug":"consideration-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/consideration-cases.php","title":{"rendered":"Consideration Case Summaries"},"content":{"rendered":"

Consideration Cases<\/h2>\n

Re McArdle (1951)<\/p>\n

A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.<\/p>\n

It was held that the promise was unenforceable as all the work had been done\u00a0before the promise was made and was therefore past consideration.<\/p>\n

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615)<\/h3>\n

Braithwait killed someone and then asked Lampleigh to get him a pardon.<\/p>\n

Lampleigh got the pardon and gave it to Braithwait who promised to pay Lampleigh\u00a0\u00a3100 for his trouble.<\/p>\n

It was held that although Lampleigh\u2019s consideration was past (he had got the\u00a0pardon) Braithwaite\u2019s promise to pay could be linked to Braithwaite\u2019s earlier\u00a0request and treated as one agreement, so it could be implied at the time of the\u00a0request that Lampleigh would be paid.<\/p>\n

Re Casey\u2019s Patent (1892)<\/h3>\n

A and B owned a patent and C was the manager who had worked on it for two\u00a0years. A and B then promised C a one-third share in the invention for his help\u00a0in developing it. The patents were transferred to C but A and B then claimed\u00a0their return.<\/p>\n

It was held that C could rely on the agreement. Even though C\u2019s consideration\u00a0was in the past, it had been done in a business situation, at the request of A\u00a0and B and it was understood by both sides that C would be paid and the\u00a0subsequent promise to pay merely fixed the amount.<\/p>\n

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)<\/h3>\n

Lord Scarman said:<\/p>\n

\u201cAn act done before the giving of a promise to make a payment or to\u00a0confer some other benefit can sometimes be consideration for the promise. The\u00a0act must have been done at the promisors\u2019 request: the parties must have\u00a0understood that the act was to be remunerated either by a payment or the\u00a0conferment of some other benefit: and payment, or the conferment of a benefit,\u00a0must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chapple v Nestle (1959)<\/h3>\n

Nestle were running a special offer whereby members of the public could\u00a0obtain a music record by sending off three wrappers from Nestle\u2019s chocolate bars\u00a0plus some money. The copyright to the records was owned by Chapple, who claimed\u00a0that there had been breaches of their copyright. The case turned round whether\u00a0the three wrappers were part of the consideration. It was held that they were,\u00a0even though they were then thrown away when received.<\/p>\n

Price v Easton (1833)<\/h3>\n

Easton made a contract with X that in return for X doing work for him, Easton\u00a0would pay Price \u00a319. X did the work but Easton did not pay, so Price sued. It\u00a0was held that Price\u2019s claim must fail, as he had not provided consideration.<\/p>\n

Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)<\/h3>\n

The defendant owed an unsecured debt to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs\u00a0asked for some security, the defendant promised to provide some goods but never\u00a0produced them. When the plaintiffs tried to enforce the agreement for the\u00a0security, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs had not provided any\u00a0consideration.<\/p>\n

It was held that normally in such a case, the bank would promise not to\u00a0enforce the debt, but this was not done here. By not suing, however, the bank\u00a0had shown forbearance and this was valid consideration, so the agreement to\u00a0provide security was binding.<\/p>\n

Collins v Godefroy (1831)<\/h3>\n

Godefroy promised to pay Collins if Collins would attend court and give\u00a0evidence for Godefroy. Collins had been served with a subpoena (ie, a court\u00a0order telling someone they must attend). Collins sued for payment. It was held\u00a0that as Collins was under a legal duty to attend court he had not provided\u00a0consideration. His action therefore failed.<\/p>\n

Glassbrooke v GCC (1925)<\/h3>\n

The police were under a duty to protect a coal mine during a strike, and\u00a0proposed mobile units. The mine owner promised to pay for police to be stationed\u00a0on the premises. The police complied with this request but when they claimed the\u00a0money, the mine owner refused to pay saying that the police had simply carried\u00a0out their public duty.<\/p>\n

It was held that although the police were bound to provide protection, they\u00a0had a discretion as to the form it should take. As they believed mobile police\u00a0were sufficient, they had acted over their normal duties. The extra protection\u00a0was good consideration for the promise by the mine owner to pay for it and so\u00a0the police were entitled to payment.<\/p>\n

Stilk v Myrick (1809)<\/a><\/h3>\n

Two out of eleven sailors deserted a ship. The captain promised to pay the\u00a0remaining crew extra money if they sailed the ship back, but later refused to\u00a0pay.<\/p>\n

It was held that as the sailors were already bound by their contract to sail\u00a0back and to meet such emergencies of the voyage, promising to sail back was not\u00a0valid consideration. Thus the captain did not have to pay the extra money.<\/p>\n

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)<\/h3>\n

When nineteen out of thirty-six crew of a ship deserted, the captain promised\u00a0to pay the remaining crew extra money to sail back, but later refused to pay\u00a0saying that they were only doing their normal jobs. In this case, however, the\u00a0ship was so seriously undermanned that the rest of the journey had become\u00a0extremely hazardous.<\/p>\n

It was held that sailing the ship back in such dangerous conditions was over\u00a0and above their normal duties. It discharged the sailors from their existing\u00a0contract and left them free to enter into a new contract for the rest of the\u00a0voyage. They were therefore entitled to the money.<\/p>\n

Williams v Roffey (1990)<\/h3>\n

Roffey had a contract to refurbish a block of flats and had sub-contracted\u00a0the carpentry work to Williams. After the work had begun, it became apparent\u00a0that Williams had underestimated the cost of the work and was in financial\u00a0difficulties. Roffey, concerned that the work would not be completed on time and\u00a0that as a result they would fall foul of a penalty clause in their main contract\u00a0with the owner, agreed to pay Williams an extra payment per flat. Williams\u00a0completed the work on more flats but did not receive full payment. He stopped\u00a0work and brought an action for damages. In the Court of Appeal, Roffey argued\u00a0that Williams was only doing what he was contractually bound to do and so had\u00a0not provided consideration.<\/p>\n

It was held that where a party to an existing contract later agrees to pay an\u00a0extra \u201cbonus\u201d in order to ensure that the other party performs his\u00a0obligations under the contract, then that agreement is binding if the party\u00a0agreeing to pay the bonus has thereby obtained some new practical advantage or\u00a0avoided a disadvantage. In the present case there were benefits to Roffey\u00a0including (a) making sure Williams continued his work, (b) avoiding payment\u00a0under a damages clause of the main contract if Williams was late, and (c)\u00a0avoiding the expense and trouble of getting someone else. Therefore, Williams\u00a0was entitled to payment.<\/p>\n

Scotson v Pegg (1861)<\/h3>\n

Scotson contracted to deliver coal to X, or to X\u2019s order. X sold the coal to\u00a0Pegg and ordered Scotson to deliver the coal to Pegg. Then Pegg promised Scotson\u00a0that he would unload it at a fixed rate. In an action by Scotson to enforce\u00a0Pegg\u2019s promise, Pegg argued that the promise was not binding because Scotson had\u00a0not provided consideration as Scotson was bound by his contract with X (a third\u00a0party) to deliver the coal.<\/p>\n

It was held that Scotson\u2019s delivery of coal (the performance of an existing\u00a0contractual duty to a third party, X) was a benefit to Pegg and was valid\u00a0consideration. It could also been seen as a detriment to Scotson, as they could\u00a0have broken their contract with X and paid damages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-4883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nConsideration Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consideration Case Summaries\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Consideration Case Summaries\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\"},\"wordCount\":1318,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\",\"name\":\"Consideration Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consideration Case Summaries\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consideration Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net","description":"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/consideration-cases.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consideration Case Summaries","og_description":"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/consideration-cases.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Consideration Case Summaries","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php"},"wordCount":1318,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php","name":"Consideration Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Re McArdle (1951) A wife and her three grown-up children lived together in a house. The wife of\u00a0one of the children did some decorating and later the children promised to pay\u00a0her \u00a3488 and they signed a document to this effect.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/consideration-cases.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consideration Case Summaries"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}