This essay will examine the topic of consideration in contract law. In doing so we will examine how and why the doctrine of consideration was initially used and how it has developed over time; analyzing how economic coercion has come into play and developed over time to bridge the gap regarding whether consideration in a contract is sufficient or when one party threatens to terminate a contract unless the other party you do not accept the requests of the first party and where the second party has no apparent choice but to do so. Main body The doctrine of consideration has arguably been regarded as one of the most controversial issues in English contract law, the doctrine of consideration is only one of three critical elements needed to enter into a contract, and what makes this doctrine so fundamental is its purpose, which seeks to establish legal limits on the enforceability of an agreement, even where they would otherwise be legally binding. As described by Lush J, in the case of Currie v Misa the consideration is “… some right, interest, profit or benefit accrued to one party, or some forbearance, damage, loss or liability given, suffered or assumed by the other. The three main rules of this doctrine are these; the consideration must not be passed, it must be sufficient but not necessarily adequate and the consideration must move from the promisor to the promisor. Thus we can see how this fundamental doctrine of contract law seeks to ensure that neither party enters into an unwanted agreement. “The doctrine of consideration actually plays a number of different roles. It has been argued that the doctrine of consideration has a formal aspect, in that it can serve an evidentiary, precautionary… middle of paper… final outcome, some even speculate that the Stilk v Myrick case could have gone differently. Modern commentators argue that if the judge had awarded the money to the plaintiff it would have set a precedent that would have risked the crews of other ships blackmailing the captains into giving them more money, however if the doctrine of economic duress had been available to the The judge believed he would be more likely to rule that the captain was under economic duress. It is now clear how the doctrine of duress can be used and has led to fairer and more accurate sentences as there are more options available to the judge to make his decision. It can be argued that more cases are needed to further define the limits of economic coercion, however it is quite clear what falls under this doctrine and how it can be used to protect parties from adverse outcomes..