Which of the following cases supports the common law rule that consideration is not required to have a legally recognised value?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Chappell & Co v Nestle Co Ltd., the court held that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. This case supports the common law rule that consideration does not need to have a legally recognized value, as the wrappers in the case were considered sufficient consideration even though they had no intrinsic value.

Which of the Following Cases Supports the Common Law Rule