Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234

Facts

  • Roscorla purchased a horse from Thomas; the sale constituted the initial transaction between the parties.
  • After the sale was concluded, Thomas assured Roscorla that the horse was sound, free from vice, and of good quality.
  • The horse was later discovered to have a vicious temperament, contrary to Thomas’s assurance.
  • Roscorla brought a claim for breach of contract based on the post-sale statement about the horse’s condition.
  • The central question was whether Thomas’s assurance, made after the sale, formed a binding contractual warranty supported by valid consideration.

Issues

  1. Whether a promise made after the completion of a contractual transaction (the sale of the horse) is enforceable.
  2. Whether the purchaser’s prior act of buying the horse constitutes valid consideration for the seller’s subsequent warranty regarding the horse’s quality.

Decision

  • The Court of Queen’s Bench held that the only consideration provided by Roscorla, the purchase of the horse, was completed before the subsequent promise was made.
  • The court ruled that past consideration, such as an act completed prior to a later promise, cannot support that promise.
  • The warranty given after the sale was not supported by new or contemporaneous consideration and was therefore unenforceable.
  • The only promise implied by the original sale was the transfer of ownership, not the subsequent assurance of quality.

Legal Principles

  • In contract law, consideration must be given in exchange for a promise; past acts or benefits do not qualify as good consideration for a subsequent promise.
  • A promise made after a completed transaction, without new consideration, is deemed gratuitous and unenforceable.
  • The general rule from this case is subject to limited exceptions, such as where the prior act was performed at the request of the promisor and a later promise was understood at the outset to be forthcoming, as established in cases like Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615).
  • The decision in Roscorla v Thomas maintains that consideration and a legal promise must be concurrent or mutually exchanged.

Conclusion

Roscorla v Thomas established that past consideration is insufficient to support a subsequent promise, reinforcing the requirement that consideration must be contemporaneous with, or given in exchange for, the promise in order for it to be enforceable in contract law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal