The doctrine of consideration has come under increasing attack. In Gay Choon Ing v. Loh Sze_x000D_ Ti Terence Peter, Andrew Phang Boon Leong J.A. of the Singapore Court of Appeal raises the_x000D_ spectre of its replacement with the doctrines of economic duress, undue influence, unconscionability and promissory estoppel. In response to the reasoning of Phang J.A. and others, I argue that: _x000D_ (i) consideration is not a meaningless doctrine; in particular, the adequacy of consideration is relevant to the enforceability of an agreement and 'practical benefit' can be made a meaningful concept;_x000D_ (ii) contract law does not, and should not, enforce all seriously intended undertakings; and (iii) the vitiating factors do not simply interrogate the presence of contractual intention and cannot replace the functions performed by consideration.