Roscorla v Thomas [1842]
Share
Roscorla v Thomas [1842] 3 QB 234 is an important case in English contract law, highlighting the principle that past conduct alone is not sufficient consideration to support a contract. Past consideration is generally not considered valid.
The case involved an agreement for the purchase of a horse. After the contract was completed, the seller provided a warranty that the horse was "free from vice" (meaning it had no harmful behavioural traits). However, upon delivery, the buyer discovered that the horse was, in fact, vicious in behaviour. As a result, the buyer sued.
Lord Denman CJ delivered the judgment of the Court, stating that a general rule exists, subject to certain exceptions not applicable in this case: the promise must be coextensive with the consideration. He emphasised that consideration that is past and executed will not support any promise beyond what would be implied by law.
In this case, the Court ruled in favour of the defendant because his promise (the warranty of soundness) was not supported by consideration. The consideration for the warranty had already been provided through the original contract of sale. According to the court, for the warranty to be legally effective, new consideration would have had to be given. This decision underscores the principle in English contract law that consideration contracted for in the past does not constitute valid consideration for a present agreement.
In essence, the case established the importance of a contemporaneous exchange of value (consideration) for promises made in a contract, and it clarified that past actions or promises without fresh consideration are generally insufficient to create legal obligations.
The case involved an agreement for the purchase of a horse. After the contract was completed, the seller provided a warranty that the horse was "free from vice" (meaning it had no harmful behavioural traits). However, upon delivery, the buyer discovered that the horse was, in fact, vicious in behaviour. As a result, the buyer sued.
Lord Denman CJ delivered the judgment of the Court, stating that a general rule exists, subject to certain exceptions not applicable in this case: the promise must be coextensive with the consideration. He emphasised that consideration that is past and executed will not support any promise beyond what would be implied by law.
In this case, the Court ruled in favour of the defendant because his promise (the warranty of soundness) was not supported by consideration. The consideration for the warranty had already been provided through the original contract of sale. According to the court, for the warranty to be legally effective, new consideration would have had to be given. This decision underscores the principle in English contract law that consideration contracted for in the past does not constitute valid consideration for a present agreement.
In essence, the case established the importance of a contemporaneous exchange of value (consideration) for promises made in a contract, and it clarified that past actions or promises without fresh consideration are generally insufficient to create legal obligations.
