Sufficiency of Consideration - Roscorla v Thomas

Citations: (1842) 3 QB 234; 114 ER 496 Facts: - The plaintiff bought a horse from the defendant for 30. - After the sale was made, the defendant promised the plaintiff that the horse was sound and free from vice. - The plaintiff sought damages for breach of warranty, when instead, the horse allegedly turned out to be very vicious, restive, ungovernable and ferocious. Issues: - Whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant. (No) o Whether there was sufficient consideration to support the subsequent promise. (No) Whether the fact that the promise was express would warrant the extension of the promise beyond that which would be implied by law. (No) Whether the consideration, though insufficient to raise an implied promise, will nevertheless support an express one. (No) Reasoning (Per Lord Denman): - General rule (subject to one exception): Past consideration is not considered sufficient consideration. - Original terms of this contract excluded a warranty. Payment of the horses purchase price was a past consideration. The only promise resulting from the consideration was the delivery of the horse upon request. - Cases in which consideration was insufficient to raise an implied promise, and yet supported an express one, could be distinguished and are inapplicable here. - Therefore, plaintiff had given no consideration for the subsequent promise, and thus it was not enforceable. Order: Rule nisi for arrest of judgment made absolute. Additional Notes: - While a timeline of events is a good starting point for determining consideration, it is not conclusive. - Exceptions arise, for instance, if you promise to pay and agree to decide the terms later. Also, services performed at the request of the promisor, in circumstances that raise an implication that they are to be paid for, will constitute good consideration for the subsequent promise to pay for them.