Scribd
Upload
556 views2 pages

Eastwood V Kenyon

Eastwood v Kenyon involved a dispute over repayment of a loan. John Sutcliffe had borrowed money from Blackburn to pay for his daughter Sarah's education. Sarah and later her husband Kenyon both promised to repay the loan when Sarah came of age. However, Kenyon failed to repay the loan and Eastwood sued. The court found that a mere promise is not sufficient to form a legally binding contract, and that past consideration (the original loan) did not constitute consideration to support Kenyon's promise. Therefore, no contract was found to exist between the parties.

Uploaded by

pieret atek odong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
556 views2 pages

Eastwood V Kenyon

Eastwood v Kenyon involved a dispute over repayment of a loan. John Sutcliffe had borrowed money from Blackburn to pay for his daughter Sarah's education. Sarah and later her husband Kenyon both promised to repay the loan when Sarah came of age. However, Kenyon failed to repay the loan and Eastwood sued. The court found that a mere promise is not sufficient to form a legally binding contract, and that past consideration (the original loan) did not constitute consideration to support Kenyon's promise. Therefore, no contract was found to exist between the parties.

Uploaded by

pieret atek odong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Eastwood v Kenyon

EDIT
  COMMENTS (2)  SHARE

Eastwood v Kenyon

Citation

Eastwood v Kenyon (1840), 11 Ad&E 438


Plaintiff/Appellant

Eastwood
Defendant/Respondent

Kenyon
Year

1840
Court

Queen's Bench Division


Country

United Kingdom
Issue

Is a promise sufficient to form a contract?

Contents
 Facts
 Issue
 Decision
 Reasons
 Ratio

Factsedit | edit source
John Sutcliffe died and left Eastwood as the guardian to his infant daughter, Sarah. Eastwood
borrowed money from one Blackburn to pay for Sarah's education and Sarah promised Eastwood
she would pay  back Blackburn when she came of age. Sarah paid one year's interest to him. Sarah
then married Kenyon who also promised Eastwood to pay back Blackburn. Kenyon failed to do so
and Eastwood sued. 

Issueedit | edit source
1. Is a promise sufficient to form a contract?
Decisionedit | edit source
No contract found to have existed. Hence can't be binding

Reasonsedit | edit source
The court found that on the facts there was nothing more than a benefit voluntarily conferred by
Eastwood and an express promise made by Kenyon to repay the money.
Lord Denman CJ argued that while deliberately made promises should be enforced this would have
the result of:
1. annihilating the necessity for consideration and it is not the role of contract law to enforce
morality
2. the floodgates opening with everyone seeking to enforce promises made
Ratioedit | edit source
 Promises are not sufficient to found a contract.
 Consideration made in the past is no consideration at all.
 Moral obligation does not constitute consideration

You might also like