Eastwood v Kenyon [1840]

Court: Court of Queen’s Bench

Facts: In Eastwood v Kenyon [1840] 11 Ad & E 438, the executor of a deceased estate took responsibility for caring for the deceased's daughter until she came of age. During this time, he incurred significant expenses and borrowed money from Blackburn, secured by a promissory note. Once the daughter reached adulthood, she promised to repay the amount of the note and paid one year's interest to Blackburn. After her marriage to the defendant, the defendant promised to reimburse the plaintiff for the amount. However, the defendant failed to make the payment, leading the plaintiff to sue based on the promise.

Issue: Whether the defendant’s promise to reimburse the plaintiff was legally binding, considering it was based on past actions and lacked consideration.

Held: The Court held that the promise to reimburse was not supported by consideration. The defendant’s promise was deemed a moral obligation rather than a legally binding contract because it was based on past actions. The court emphasized that past consideration does not constitute valid consideration for a new promise.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Denman CJ observed that the consideration was past and that the benefit was voluntarily conferred rather than being made at the request of the defendant.

💡 Leveluplaw: This case illustrates the principle that past performance cannot be considered good consideration for a new promise. A promise to pay for something that has already been done is considered gratuitous and not enforceable. The case reaffirms that valid consideration must be present and related to the promise being made, rather than being based on prior actions. This principle was later reaffirmed in cases like Roscorla v Thomas [1842] and has exceptions in specific situations such as Lampleigh v Brathwait and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980].