Eastwood v Kenyon [1840]
Share
In Eastwood v Kenyon [1840] 11 Ad & E 438 (QB), the executor of a deceased estate took it upon himself to care for the deceased's daughter until she reached adulthood. During this period, he spent a considerable amount of money and borrowed additional funds from Blackburn, secured by a promissory note. When the daughter came of age, she promised to repay the plaintiff the amount of the note and even paid one year's interest on the note to Blackburn. Subsequently, she married the defendant, who in turn promised to reimburse the plaintiff.
However, the defendant failed to make any payments, leading the plaintiff to sue based on the promise of reimbursement. The key issue in the case was whether the promise to reimburse was legally binding, as it was argued that it was a purely moral obligation and lacked consideration.
The court held that the promise to reimburse was not supported by consideration. In contract law, consideration refers to something of value given by each party in exchange for the promise of the other. The court noted that the defendant's promise was not part of an exchange because it was based on past actions (the plaintiff's care for the deceased's daughter) and, therefore, could not constitute valid consideration. This decision aligns with the legal principle that past consideration is generally considered no consideration.
The information provided also touches upon the broader concept of consideration in contract law. Consideration can take various forms, including money, services, promises, or refraining from certain actions. Courts typically focus on the presence of consideration rather than assessing the fairness or adequacy of the consideration exchanged between parties. The values need not be comparable; the crucial aspect is that each party passes some legal obligation or duty to the other, forming the basis for a valid contract.
However, the defendant failed to make any payments, leading the plaintiff to sue based on the promise of reimbursement. The key issue in the case was whether the promise to reimburse was legally binding, as it was argued that it was a purely moral obligation and lacked consideration.
The court held that the promise to reimburse was not supported by consideration. In contract law, consideration refers to something of value given by each party in exchange for the promise of the other. The court noted that the defendant's promise was not part of an exchange because it was based on past actions (the plaintiff's care for the deceased's daughter) and, therefore, could not constitute valid consideration. This decision aligns with the legal principle that past consideration is generally considered no consideration.
The information provided also touches upon the broader concept of consideration in contract law. Consideration can take various forms, including money, services, promises, or refraining from certain actions. Courts typically focus on the presence of consideration rather than assessing the fairness or adequacy of the consideration exchanged between parties. The values need not be comparable; the crucial aspect is that each party passes some legal obligation or duty to the other, forming the basis for a valid contract.
