Roscorla v Thomas
(1842) 3 QB 234
Facts
P purchased a horse from D. D then promised the horse was sound. The horse was in fact not sound and P sued for breach of contract.
Held
There was no consideration for the promise that the horse was sound. The only consideration that had been alleged was the contract for the sale of the horse – this, however, had preceded the defendant’s promise – it was not part of the bargain – not given in exchange for the promise. Consequently it was not good consideration.
|
