FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 39,526 times | Saved to 336 briefcases
Roscorla v Thomas, (1842) 3 QB 234

Facts:

P bought horse for 30. After sale D said horse was free from vice. Later horse was aggressive

Issue(s):

Would the consideration support and express promise?

Ratio:

Past consideration is not valid consideration (are limited exceptions where subsequent promise would be binding).
**Consideration must be given to the actual promise D makes.
**Consideration must be contemporaneous with the contract

Analysis:

Exceptions arise where there will be good consideration:
**If you promise to pay and agree to decide the terms later.
**Services performed at the request of the promisor, in circumstances that raise an implication that they are to be paid for.
**Subsequent promise may become binding in a minors contract.

Holding:

Plaintiff had given no consideration for the subsequent promise, and thus it was not enforceable


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.