Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDIT
COMMENTS (2) SHARE
Eastwood v Kenyon
Citation
Eastwood
Defendant/Respondent
Kenyon
Year
1840
Court
United Kingdom
Issue
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