consideration for a new promise, in the circumstances where no duress or fraud are found and where the practical benefits are to the promisor. The performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not good consideration for a fresh promise given by the promisor. However, performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, see further below. According to the Court of Appeal, it is unlikely that either avoiding a breach of contract with a third party, avoiding the trouble and expense of engaging a third party to carry out work or avoiding a penalty clause in a third party contract will be a "practical benefit". In Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB, the practical benefit was held to be the avoiding of a breach of contract, which was clearly not an extension of the principle. This is true unless the debtor provided fresh consideration for the promise. The following, mentioned in Pinnel's Case, and confirmed by Sibree v. Tripp, may amount to fresh consideration: If the promisee offers part payment earlier than full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; If the promisee offers part payment at a different place than where full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; or, If the promisee pays the debt in part by another chattel (note, however, that part payment by cheque, where full payment was due by another means, is not consideration.) Another exception is that part payment of the debt by a third party as consideration for a promise to discharge the creditor from the full sum, prevents the creditor then suing the debtor for full payment (see Welby v Drake). The Court of Appeal, in Re Selectmove Ltd, stated that the practical benefit doctrine, arising from Williams v Roffey, cannot be used as an additional exception to the rule. In that case, it was held that the doctrine only applies where the original promise was a promise to pay extra and not to pay less. The Court of Appeal in Re Selectmove were unable to distinguish Foakes v Beer (a House of Lords decision), in order to apply Williams v Roffey (a Court of Appeal decision). It therefore remains to be seen whether the House of Lords would decide this point differently. In any event, the equitable principle of promissory