1 According to the rules of consideration, consideration must be sufficient, it must not already be owed under an existing legal duty or it can be to give up a legal right.On the rule basis of consideration, sufficient consideration is necessary, it must not already be possessed under a current legal duty or it can be to give up a legal right.As required by the rules of consideration, there must be adequate consideration. It should neither escape a legal responsibility nor surrender a legal right.According to the regulations of consideration, consideration shall be abundant, it must be already fulfill the legal duty or Get the corresponding rights.2 To be a valid consideration, the consideration must have some legal value although it can be a very low value.Legal value is important for the validity of the consideration; sometime the outcome value may be inexpensive.Legal value is necessary to make a consideration effective, no matter how much the value will be.A valid consideration must have legal value whether is high or low.3 For example, a promise by the house owner to allow somebody to occupy the house for life in exchange for £1 per year is an enforceable agreement (Thomas v Thomas, 1842).For example, the landlord allowing the tenant to rent the house for one pound a year is an enforceable agreement (Thomas v Thomas, 1842).As claimed by Thomas v Thomas (1842), for instance, if a house owner promise someone to rent his house for only £1 each year. This deal is supposed to be practical. For instance, the house owner promises that someone can reside the house for life on the condition of £1 every year (Thomas v Thomas, 1842).4 Although consideration must provide some benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee, these do not have a great deal.Several benefits to the promisor or detriment to the promise must be provided forconsideration, this is not a major concern.It does not matter whether a consideration can be helpful to the promisor or harmful to the promisee.As a promise that provide something and return it, whatever the promise is worthful or not.5 Providing something is given in return for a promise, it does not matter that it is not much, or not what the promise would be considered worth.As long as something is return for the promise, the volume can be ignored.If something is needed reciprocally for a promise, it makes no difference when it is not enormous or not worthy the value.6 Courts would not inquire into the adequacy of consideration as long as there are some.The adequacy of consideration wouldn’t be inquired by the courts as long as there are some.In the aspect of the sufficiency of consideration, courts rarely get involved, providing some of them exist.In general, Courts would not explore whether consideration is proper.7 The reason for this rule is because of the old idea of freedom of contract.This rule exits only because the old contract freedom idea.An ancient thought of freedom of agreement make this rule exist.because consider of the old idea of freedom of contract, this role exist.8 the parties themselves should be allowed to make bargains that suit them without interference from courts (Winnie, 2010).Without interference from courts, the parties should be able to make bargains which suit them (Winnie, 2010).According to Winnie (2010), courts are not allowed to interrupt when the parties are making proper negotiations for each other.The parties can make agreements which benefit to them, but they cannot interfere with courts.9 “If anyone collects chocolate bar wrappers, they can buy Rockin' Shoes records at a much lower price.”"Rockin' Shoes records can be bought at a cheaper price for anyone that collects chocolate wrappers.""Anyone who collects chocolate bar wrappers can buy Rockin' Shoes at a more reduced price."10 Mr. Chappell collected the chocolate bar wrappers but Nestle later claimed that chocolate wrappers are not valid consideration because they have no value.All the chocolate wrapper collected by Mr. Chappell because Nestle later claimed that chocolate wrappers are not valid consideration as they are not worth anything.Owing to none of worthless, the chocolate bar wrappers collected by Mr. Chappell was not recognised by Nestle Company11 At last, the court decided that the chocolate wrappers were valid consideration. They have some legal value (Chappell v Nestle, 1959).But in the end, the court approved the collection as a valid consideration. Providing a certain legal value (Chappell v Nestle, 1959).Finally, the court adjudged that the chocolate bar wrappers should be considered valid, because they surely have some legal value.。