body: Paul Davies. [*JC Smith's The Law of Contract* (2018 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smiths-Law-Contract-Paul-Davies/dp/0198807813/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p. 449.  
  
  Mindy Chen-Wishart. [*Contract Law* (2018 6 edn)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 312.
  
  
  
  > 
  > [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jPK7W.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jPK7W.jpg)
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  I agree with 
  
  
  1. Davies that 'consideration' is ambiguous and can be confounded.
  2. Lord Toulson that "failure of basis" is more accurate.
  
  
  Please see question in title. Why was "consideration" standardized? This poly-semy is also mentioned on p. 277. [Richard](https://www.uclan.ac.uk/staff_profiles/richard-taylor.php) and [Damian](https://www.slaughterandmay.com/who-we-are/partners/damian-taylor/) Taylor. [*Contract Law Directions* (2019 7 ed)](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/contract-law-directions-9780198836599?&lang=en&). 
  
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DTw3H.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DTw3H.jpg)
  
  
  
title: Why was 'consideration' embraced to mean 'failure of consideration', when this would be better termed as 'failure of basis'?