Even though the Central London Property Trust v High Trees Pty case suggests that past consideration can be valid given the circumstances, there are many other cases after the High Tree case shows the concept of past consideration is not good consideration still an indicator of judgment in court. In the Re McArdle court of appeal case in 1951, Majorie McArdle carried out some repairs and improvements on a bungalow, such property was part of the family estate her father in law owned before he passed away. According to Majorie’s father in law’s will, he had left the bungalow along side all property under his name to his wife for life then on trust for Majorie’s husband and his four siblings. After the work was finished Majorie’s brother and sisters in law signed a document to state in consideration of her effort of carrying out the repairs of the bungalow, they agree to pay her $480 from the proceeds of sale, this payment was however never been made. The court held in this case, since the promise to make payment to Majorie McArdle happened after the consideration had already been performed therefore the promise to make payment was not binding. Past consideration was ruled not valid. The conclusion to draw from this case is that if one party voluntarily performs an act before another party make a promise in consideration of the act performed, such consideration count as a past consideration, which means it is not a good consideration and does not hold legal ground to sue on a contract.
Another example of past consideration is no longer good consideration is the case of Roscorla v Thomas where the buyer bought a horse from a seller. After the sale was completed, the seller promised that the horse was free from vice where in fact the horse was vicious as the buyer discovered later. The buyer brought up a lawsuit against the seller saying that he had breached his