Introduction:
This essay will be exploring the issue of consideration through showing how the
Police Act 1996 is relevant to it and discussing cases which have represented
this. The cases which are most relevant to this area of contract law are, Glasbrook Brothers Limited v Glamorgan
County Council 1925 AC 270, Harriss v
Sheffield United Football Club 1987 2 W.L.R 305 and  West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Limited 2006 1WLR
2005.

Consideration:
Consideration is known to be defined as a ‘price to be paid for the promise
bought’. Lush J defined consideration in Currie v Misa (1875) as, ‘a valuable
consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right,
interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other’.1
This is a clear representation of how consideration tends to be viewed from 2
different perspectives. It is further explained in Contract law sixth edition
by Taylor and Taylor. It states that, ‘consideration can be looked at from two
angles, as a benefit to one party or a detriment to the other’.2
This supports the point made above regarding that consideration can be
understood as a price to be paid for one party for the services they had bought
from the other party and it is ultimately a summarised version of Lush j’s
definition. However, the benefits or detriments of each party must be a legally
sufficient one to be considered in the eyes of the law.  There are also two types of contracts that
are crucial to the area of consideration. The first is bilateral, this type of
contract relates to the promises made by both parties. For example, when buying
a car off another, the seller must agree to hand over the vehicle to the buyer
and the buyer must agree to pay a specific price in exchange. A unilateral
contract involves one of the parties to perform or carry out and act based on
the promises made by the other party.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The
Police Act:
The Police Act 1996 is a piece of legislation regarding the police authorities in
England and Wales as well as the Home Secretary, giving them several powers in
regards to their duties such as supervision. Section 25 is the most relevant to
the area for consideration and special services. Section 25 is about the
Provision of Special services and is part 1 of the organisation of the police
force. It states,’ The chief officer/constable of police of a police force may
provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises
or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained,
subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may
be determined by that authority.’3
This suggests that the police are obliged to provide their ‘special services’
to any individual who may request it, and it is subject to the payment. It is
known and discussed that this section of the Police Act does not define what
‘special services’ are and therefore can be very ambiguous. The services
provided by the police are divided into two, being, operational and special
police services. In other words one may charge and the other will not.

Case 1:
A case which represents consideration and the Police Act 1996 very clearly is
the case of Harriss v Sheffield United
Football Club 1987. In this case there was a claim of special services
worth up to £51,669.00. As summarised, the police authorities were claiming as
they had provided special services to the club. However, the club denied this
as they believed it was the duty of the police be both inside and outside of
the grounds on match days to provide protection and order.4
It was taken into consideration that the chief constable had to provide
officers for both inside and outside of the grounds therefore this was deemed
as special services as officers off duty would have been required. Despite the
denial of the club, it had been held that there was a price to be paid for the
special services. The police act 1996 states that police can provide special
services under the request of any individual or body if they are compensated
for the particular services. In addition it signifies that, ‘private property,
or football stadiums will be classified as an extensive request’. This simply
explains that such circumstances may exceed what is considered to be the norm
duty for police officers. Therefore to conclude, in this case it was held that
the club had to pay a price for the special services they had received.

Case 2:
A second case which can be demonstrated is West
Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Limited 2006. This particular
case has two main issues. These are whether the police performed special
services and whether Mean Fiddler actually requested a special service. In
abstract, many police officers were required to be on duty for this festival
even though most were on holiday or were off duty. The police provided traffic
management which they were paid for and had officers prepared to be called on
if necessary however they were not paid for this. Mean Fiddler had understood
that they were not liable to pay if the police were not actually present on the
site of the festival and therefore officers who were offsite were just
fulfilling their duties not delivering ‘special services’. To conclude, as the
services provided were different to what was requested (under section 25(1)),
the police were not entitled to charge for their services. A difference in
offsite and on site policing has been established5. 

Case 3:
The third case relevant to this is, Glasbrook
Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County Council 1925. The defendants in this
case are the owners of a colliery. They had made a request for police to give
protection during the miner’s strike. They asked for the police officers to be
at the premises rather than offsite. The police had refused to station police
officers unless the manager pays for these expenses. Initially the manager of
the colliery agreed to pay this however later refused to do so. They argued
that they believe it is the police officers duty to provide protection and this
is not a special service. It was held by their Lordships that the police were
entitled to be paid as having the officers stationed at the premises has
exceeded their usual duty. Their duties became special services of preventative
practice on private property. Viscount Finlay, ‘There is no doubt that
it is the duty of the police to give adequate protection to all persons and
their property. In discharging this duty those in control of the police must
exercise their judgment as to the manner in which the protection should be
afforded.’6

Event 1 Private
21st Birthday Party Friday May 26th at the Cricket Club:
 This event involves a large party
of 200 guests who can be under the influence of alcohol at the Cricket Club.
The party hosts are particularly anxious of unwanted and intoxicated guests
arriving and causing disturbance. The event is taking place on private property
and the parents of the host would like the reassurance of police nearby between
the early hours and most dangerous hours of 12:30-3AM. According to the Police
Act 1997 this particular scenario requires preventative policing, they are
required to prevent disturbances and problems. Preventative policing on private
property is under special services whereas preventative policing on public land
is operational policing.7
In this particular scenario, the event is taking place on private property
however the requirement of the hosts is to have police on standby nearby.
Therefore, they are not required onsite and their duties are not deemed as
special services. This can be supported by the previous case discussed above, West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Limited 2006. As discussed, in this case, the
police were not able to receive their claim as the difference between offsite
and onsite policing was established. Furthermore, the services that the police
had performed were different to those required which couldn’t determine the
fact that special services were presented.

Event 2 Hereford Town
FC v Blackwater FC Saturday May 27th:
This particular event involves a football match in Hereford Town, the
local town is playing against Blackwater and the fans of both teams have a
reputation of hooliganism. Usually Hereford Town Fc always had two police
officers on duty around the grounds however this year they would like an
additional 6 officers within the grounds. 
There is always also a police car on the main road to monitor traffic.
In addition, the Victuallers Association who represents licensed premises are
worried about disturbances and dangerous events occurring at pubs. They have
requested for police officers to be on duty around the Town Centre.  In order to determine whether or not the
police will be delivering special services, the requests must be divided. First
of all, compared to the two police officers on duty around the grounds in the
past, the club now require 6 police officers inside the grounds. As mentioned
above when looking at the case of, Harriss v Sheffield United Football
Club 1987, we can
see the Police Act establishes that, ‘private property, or football stadiums
will be classified as an extensive request’. Therefore when requiring police
services on private property such as stadiums, this may exceed their normal
duties becoming special services. In order to have the 6 officers inside the
grounds, Hereford Town FC must pay for special police services under section 25
of the Police Act 1996. The second request of having a police car to maintain
traffic may also be a special service. As mentioned above in the case of West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading
Festival Limited 2006 the police were paid for maintaining order in
traffic. However, this may not be the case for this particular event as this
preventative duty may in fact be an operational duty rather than a special
police services one therefore Hereford Town FC should be prepared to pay for
these services also. Lastly the request made by Victuallers Association for
police officers to be on standby around the town centre in case of disturbances
occurring at pubs does not go under special police services. These are
operational services. Furthermore, due to this being preventative policing on
public land, the police are not entitled to any money from Victuallers
Associated, they are working on the town centre rather than individual pubs. To
conclude, this particular event may involve a mixture of special police
services and operational police services therefore a price may be paid for the
promises bought.

Event 3 Festival in the Park Sunday May 28th
& Monday May 29th :
This event is a charity concert hosted by Needy Kids.
The concert will include well known musical acts and over the next two days
more so Monday rather than Sunday there may need to be some sort of police
protection in case of disturbances. The chief executive of the even Joanna
believes the entrance and exit will be easy to control on Sunday but not on
Monday and therefore needs the help of the police. There also needs to be
police directing traffic towards central parking on both days. Joanna is
specifically worried about drug use on Monday during the concert and has asked
that the police be stationed on site operating a mobile station that can arrest
individuals where necessary. The mobile station has been suggested to be used
on both days. Joanna must be prepared to pay for special services as the police
are required to be present on site. As shown in the cases above, there is a
difference between onsite and offsite police services. Especially if they are on
private property. Furthermore the police are operating a mobile station for
arrests which are also exceeding their normal duties. In the case of West Yorkshire Police Authority v
Reading Festival Limited 2006 we can clearly see that the police were not paid as they were not
present delivering their duties on site, they were simply around the premises.
In this event it will be the opposite therefore the police will be delivering
special services. Furthermore, Joanna should be prepared for paying the police
in maintaining traffic and directing people towards central parking.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the area of consideration involves both parties meaning that one
party will have to pay for a promise bought. As explained, this may involves
one party benefiting and one party not when it comes to the contract made. The
Police Act1996 section 25 discussed the special services police are able to
provide and how it can be noticed. When looking at the three events above we
can see that once they are supported with the cases of, Harriss v Sheffield United Football Club 1987, Glasbrook Brothers Limited v Glamorgan
County Council 1925 and Glasbrook
Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County Council 1925 it is much more easy to
determine whether the services they are requiring are operational or special
services. Combining consideration, the Police Act and the cases has allowed for
a clear demonstration of why the events may or may not have to pay for the
police services.

1 Currie v Misa (1875)

2 Richard Taylor and Damien
Taylor, Contract Law, (2017 6th
edn, OUP), pg.71

3 Police Act 1996

4 Harriss v
Sheffield United Football Club 1987 2 W.L.R 305

5 West Yorkshire
Police Authority v Reading Festival Limited 2006 1WLR 2005

6 Glasbrook
Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County
Council 1925 AC 270,

7 Police Act 1996 c.
16 Part I ORGANISATION OF POLICE FORCES