Suppose A is a screenwriter and B runs a film production company. Said to B, “Buy my script.” B says, “What if you did – I`m going to pay you $5,000 so you don`t let anyone produce your film for another year. If I produce your film this year, I will give you $50,000 more, and no one else will be able to produce it. If I don`t produce your film this year, you can go. If these two are then arguing, the question of whether there is a contract will be answered. B had an option contract – he could choose to produce the script or not. B`s idea was the $5,000 down and the possibility of $50,000. A`s reflection has been handed exclusive rights to the film script for at least a year. If the contracting parties are already under contract, the promise to do something they have already contracted cannot be a “fresh” reflection. This is why consideration may be insufficient from a commercial point of view, but for legal reasons: the additional factor taken into account. This is one of the sources of criticism of the general rule: the payment of $999 of $1,000 will not be a good idea for a promise to give up the balance of $1. However, the payment of $10 plus pound worth $5 is a good consideration (provided by the Promisor) for the promise to forego the balance of $990) As there is no consideration of a party, there is no contract. Nor does it take into account the promise to fulfill an existing obligation to the contractor.
 This rule, however, has been considerably restricted by recent jurisprudence. The general rule is that if a creditor promises to pay a debt in return for a fraction of the payment upon payment of the agreed portion, does not represent a consideration for the commitment, as it is simply a partial performance of a contractual obligation already owed.   Therefore, the debtor remains responsible for the full amount, as he cannot compel the promisor to accept less. A prime example is Stilk v Myrick, where Stilk, a sailor, agreed with Myrick to sail his boat to the Baltic Sea and return for $5 a month. During the journey, two men deserted. Myrick promised to raise stilk`s wages if Stilk agreed to stick to his contract in the face of desertions. Stilk agreed and upon his return to port, Myrick refused to pay him the extra wages. It was found that Myrick`s new promise was unworkable, for Stilk`s consideration to fulfill a duty he already owed under contract to Myrick was not a good idea of Myrick`s promise to increase his wages.  In addition, a contract between two parties and one party after its creation promises to give an additional benefit to the other party, since that undertaking is not binding, since the consideration of the undertaking, that is, its entry into the original contract, had already been entered into (or “used”) at the time of the next commitment.