Currie v Misa – Summary

January 24, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Introduction to Currie v Misa – Summary:

Currie v Misa, decided in 1875-76 by the English courts, stands as a cornerstone in contract law, defining the crucial principle of consideration. The case centered on Mr. Misa’s refusal to honor four bills of exchange acquired by Mr. Currie, a banker, and the legal question hinged on whether Mr. Currie’s acceptance of the bills, given as security for a pre-existing debt owed by the issuer, Lizardi & Co., constituted valid consideration for a new contract.


  • Lizardi & Co., seemingly creditworthy at the time, sold four bills of exchange to Mr. Misa.
  • Mr. Currie later received these bills from Lizardi & Co. as security for an existing debt they owed him.
  • Lizardi & Co. subsequently declared bankruptcy, putting the validity of the bills and Mr. Currie’s claim in question.

Procedural History:

The case initially went through the lower courts before reaching the Exchequer Chamber, which delivered the first significant judgment. Mr. Misa subsequently appealed the decision to the House of Lords, seeking to overturn the lower court’s ruling.

Issue(s) Presented:

Did Mr. Currie’s acceptance of the bills of exchange, based on Lizardi & Co.’s pre-existing debt, constitute sufficient consideration for a valid contract enforceable against Mr. Misa?

Arguments of the Parties:

  • Mr. Currie: Argued that his acceptance of the bills as security, even for a pre-existing debt, amounted to valuable consideration, fulfilling the contractual requirements for an enforceable agreement.
  • Mr. Misa: Claimed that a pre-existing debt cannot serve as consideration for a new contract. He contended that Mr. Currie received no additional benefit or value from the transfer of the bills, rendering the agreement unenforceable.

Court’s Holding:

Both the Exchequer Chamber and, on appeal, the House of Lords sided with Mr. Misa. They held that a pre-existing debt does not constitute valid consideration for a new contract.


The courts reasoned that:

  • Consideration is an essential element of any contract, requiring an exchange of something of value, be it money, goods, services, or a benefit.
  • A pre-existing debt represents an already-owed obligation, not a new exchange of value, and therefore cannot fulfill the requirement of consideration for a new contract.
  • Accepting the bills as security for a pre-existing debt does not provide any additional benefit or value to the creditor, thus failing to meet the definition of consideration.

Impact and Significance:

Currie v Misa has had a lasting impact on contract law, establishing the following principles:

  • No valid contract without consideration: Every enforceable contract requires a valuable exchange of something of value, ensuring fairness and preventing gratuitous promises from becoming binding agreements.
  • Pre-existing debts insufficient: Existing debts cannot be used as consideration for new contracts, protecting parties from being bound to additional obligations based solely on prior agreements.
  • Clarity in contractual agreements: The case emphasizes the importance of clear understanding and defined exchange of value in contracts, minimizing potential disputes and ensuring enforceability.


Currie v Misa remains a landmark case, shaping the very core of contract law by defining the indispensable element of consideration. It safeguards individuals from illusory promises and reinforces the need for a valuable exchange in every binding agreement. The case continues to serve as a guiding principle for courts and legal practitioners, ensuring fairness and clarity in the world of contracts.

Why Choose Us:

Our Dissertation Topics and Titles Services are backed by a team of highly qualified and experienced writers, each possessing advanced degrees in law and a deep understanding of legal academia. Our writers, with their specialized knowledge, meticulously craft dissertation topics that are not only academically rigorous but also tailored to specific research interests. They adeptly navigate diverse legal domains, ensuring the topics are contemporary, relevant, and capable of contributing to the broader legal discourse. With a commitment to excellence, our writers bring a wealth of research expertise to deliver top-notch Dissertation Topics and Titles Services that meet the highest academic standards.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Currie v Misa – Summary' (, September 2012 ) <> accessed 25 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Currie v Misa – Summary. Retrieved from
"Currie v Misa – Summary." 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <>.
"Currie v Misa – Summary." MyLawTutor., September 2012. Web. 25 April 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Currie v Misa – Summary. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 25 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Currie v Misa – Summary [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 25 April 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Currie v Misa – Summary | |date=September 2012 |accessdate=25 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 24, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top