LAW OF CONTRACT

1. Not required.
There is no valid contract since past consideration is not goodconsideration. This is because the consideration was already completedbefore Mary made the promise to pay, so John have not given anythingnew in return for the promise.

2. Required.
There is clearly a valid contract. The court will not inquire into the adequacy of the contract. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. That is, a party must give something in return for some benefits, but the value of the benefit an detriment will not be measured by the court. Mary is free to sell the ring to Lily for $1 as long as not $0.

3. Required.
According to William v Roffrey Brothers, a promise to pay more for thecompletion of existing contractual duties is supported by considerationas long as there is a practical benefit to the promisor, such asgetting the job finished on time. If Kitty finish the job on time, she actually obtains practical benefits. Therefore, there is good consideration and a valid contract.

4. Not required.
There is no valid contract as there is no reciprocity: Ben has sufferedno detriment or conferred no benefit while receiving the goods.

5. Not required.
There is no valid contract because a promise to receive part paymentfor the settlement of an existing debt is not supported byconsideration (Foakes v Beer)

1. Required.

2. Not required.

3. Not required.

4. Not required.

5. Not required.

A valid contract has three elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration.

In order for us to see this case, we ignore the consideration based on the limited detail of the questions.

All questions above consist of offers. However, only #1 shows that the offers has been accepted by performance. Therefore, unless you have a acceptance by performance, you have no contract at all.