Shadwell v Shadwell is the first illustration of an exception to the basic rule, that an existing contractual duty to a third party can be used as good consideration for a fresh deal. In the case of Shadwell v Shadwell, a nephew had made a promise to marry, which at the time was an enforceable contract and the uncle later promised that he would pay his nephew £150 a year until he was earning £600 a year as a barrister. The young man did marry the woman to whom he was engaged and claimed the money from his uncle when it remained unpaid. The court held that even though the claimant was legally bound to marry, doing so was good consideration for the uncle's promise and that the promise was enforceable. This ruling was highly controversial in law as it went against the presumption that there is no intention to enter legal commitment when in a social or family situation.
The precedent set in this case was highly significant as the rule that it established was confirmed a year later in Scotson v Pegg. This ruling in this case also went in favour of the claimant, enforcing a promise made where there had been no fresh consideration offered, only the existing agreement with a third party. However this case may not be a direct application of the precedent, and it could be argued that this case would have had the same outcome with or without Shadwell v Shadwell due to the reasoning of business efficacy. The situation in Scotson v Pegg was a commercial one and it is evident form this and the later case of Glassbrook Bros. v Glamorgan County Council that he courts do not look kindly on promises that are made in a commercial context being broken. So while Shadwell v Shadwell showed great significance in social settings, it may only have had a slight influence in commercial settings.
The rule that an existing contractual agreement to a third party can be used as good consideration for a new promise is also shown in the cases of the Eurymedon and Pao On v Yiu Long. It can be argued that these cases rely heavily on the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell and that without this case, the outcome of later cases would have been much different, this would make the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell extremely significant in the development on the law on consideration. However it can also be argued that the ratio behind these later decision was also business efficacy as in Glassbrook v Glamorgan. This would suggest that the influence of the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell was very minimal, and only really applies in social situations and that we have not really seen a modern day application of it in the courts.
In conclusion, the significance or the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell is arguable. Many would argue that it was highly significant as it was the beginning of an exception to the basic rule that an existing duty cannot be held as good consideration for a fresh promise. However it can also be argues that Shadwell v Shadwell is the only case of it's type as the other cases that followed it may have been decided more for business efficacy reasons that because of the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell. On balance I would say that the precedent set in Shadwell v Shadwell is significant in the development of the law on consideration, but I would not say that the cases following it were decided in the way they were purely due to this precedent and the level of significance of Shadwell v Shadwell may be exaggerated.
