为了更好地理解这一点，Thomas V Thomas的案例就是一个很好的例子。原告每年支付1英镑的房租，使房子保持良好的状态。如果从道德的角度来看，现在的房租和保持房子状况良好的义务是一个很好的考虑因素。所有者要求更多的补偿并没有被视为道德上的动机。这个案例说明，即使是道德的决定，实际上也可以结束任何一个小小的审判案件，如果当事人在提起诉讼之前考虑到自己的道德价值，甚至在进入法院之前都可以解决。因此，对价的金额既可以是货币补偿，也可以是做对的行为，增强对方的财产。
To understand this better, the case of Thomas V Thomas is a good example. The plaintiff paid £1 rent per annum and kept the house in a good condition.Now the rent and the obligation of keeping the owner’s house in a good condition is a good enough consideration, if viewed from a moral perspective. The owner asking for more compensation was not seen to be morally motivated. This case registers that even moral decisions can actually end any case which is sub judice, and if the parties involved consider their own moral values before filing a case, it could solve the case even before entering courts. Thus the amount of consideration could be either monetary compensation or even an act of doing something right and enhancing for the property of the other.
Some legal historians do believe that courts have manipulated common law to support industrial growth and only help a select class of people at the expense of others.This could well lead to a thought that the selection of common law rules could have significant effect on the distribution of resources and wealth in the society. I answer to this there could be an antimonopoly law which prohibits private, inter alia, monopolies and restraint of trade, unfair methods of competition, unfair or misuse of one’s dominant position to gain more than what it should, etc.
The statement is considered valid for those who do not have any consideration and can still expect to receive some from the opponent, but it may also be harmful to those who do not have a definition of the consideration in the form of an act or monetary compensation before forming and promising the agreement. The value of consideration is a matter between the parties involved and defining it may solve many issues that may arise anew in the future, and can prevent financial and personal losses. The statement is still ambiguous and needs a lot of refinement to make it accurate because, when one word can have several meanings in law, it may be a factor of utmost concern. With proper and meticulous planning, the factor of consideration if mostly be based on moral values and principles, the claimants and the defendants could solve the case well ahead of the court’s decision.