Thomas v Thomas
Consideration must have some value in the eyes of the law but need not be adequate, and motive is not consideration.
Facts
Before he died, John Thomas told his executors that he wanted his widow to have the use of their house for the rest of her life. After his death, the executors agreed in writing that, in consideration of the testator's wishes and of her paying £1 a year towards the ground rent and keeping the house in good repair, she could live there for as long as she remained a widow. One of the executors later died, and the surviving executor tried to evict her, arguing that there was no consideration for the agreement.
Legal principle
The court held that the agreement was binding. The executors' wish to carry out the testator's wishes was the motive for the agreement, not consideration, because motive is not the same thing as consideration. However, the widow's promise to pay £1 a year and keep the house in repair was good consideration. Consideration must be something of value in the eye of the law, moving from the promisee, but it need not be adequate: the court will not ask whether the bargain was a good one.
Related cases on consideration and promissory estoppel
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
- Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643
- Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
- Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
- D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
- Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
- Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
