## Facts

- John Sutcliffe died, leaving his infant daughter, Sarah, in the care of the plaintiff, Eastwood.
- Eastwood borrowed funds to pay for the education and upbringing of Sarah.
- Upon reaching adulthood, Sarah married the defendant, Kenyon.
- After the marriage, Kenyon promised Eastwood he would repay the loan Eastwood had incurred for Sarah’s benefit.
- Kenyon failed to fulfill this promise, and Eastwood brought an action for breach of contract.

## Issues

1. Whether a promise to repay money, spent for another’s benefit before the promise was made, constitutes valid consideration.
2. Whether past consideration—an act done prior to a promise—can make a subsequent promise legally enforceable.
3. Whether a moral obligation can be sufficient to support the formation of a binding contract.

## Decision

- The Queen’s Bench found that Kenyon’s promise was unenforceable due to lack of valid consideration.
- Expenditure on Sarah’s education and upbringing by Eastwood occurred before Kenyon’s promise, constituting past consideration.
- The court held that past consideration could not support a subsequent promise and did not create a binding contract.
- It was emphasized that a sense of moral duty or gratitude does not transform into a legal obligation sufficient for contract enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration is essential to the formation of a binding contract; a promise must be supported by something of value given in exchange.
- Past consideration—acts completed prior to a promise—cannot bind the promisor, as they do not arise from a mutual exchange at the time of contracting.
- The doctrine distinguishes between legal duties and mere moral obligations.
- Limited exceptions to the past consideration rule exist, such as where an act is done at the promisor’s request with an understanding of reward, but these were not applicable in this case.

## Conclusion

Eastwood v Kenyon is a foundational authority affirming that past consideration does not render a subsequent promise legally enforceable. The case underscored the necessity of a present or future exchange of value, maintaining the distinction between enforceable contracts and non-binding moral obligations within English contract law.


Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 Ad & E 438