Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234

Good Afternoon, today me and my fellow group members () would like to present the
law case of Roscorla v Thomas as assignment.
Now i would like to talk about the fact of this case law.
The Facts:
The declaration stated that, whereas past, in consideration that Roscorla, at the request
of Thomas who is defendant, had bought of defendant a certain horse, at and for a
certain price. Thomas promised Roscorla who is Plaintiff that the said horse did not
exceed five years old, and was sound, and free from vice, nevertheless Thomas did
not perform or regard his said promise, but thereby deceived and defrauded Roscorla
that the said horse, at the time of the making of the said promise, was not free from
vice, but on the contrary there of, was then very vicious, restive, ungovernable, and
ferocious. Thank you, now I would like to pass to my group member (Ng Qi Han).
Thank you (Tan Shi Kai), now I going to talk about the issue of this Roscorla v
Thomas case.
Issue:
Would the consideration support and express promise? Whether there was a breach of
contract by the defendant or there was sufficient consideration to support the
subsequent promise? Is the fact that the promise was express would warrant the
extension of the promise beyond that which would be implied by law? Or the
consideration, though insufficient to raise an implied promise, will nevertheless
support an express one?
Thank you, now I would like to pass to (Lau Kah Seng) to continue the case law.
1
Thank you (Ng Qi Han) in This Roscorla v Thomas case law. This case law is under
the case of consideration. Right Now I would like to briefly to explain what is
consideration.
The definition of consideration
Consideration in English law, which is one of the three main building blocks of a
contract. Consideration can be anything of value, such as an item or service, which
each party to a legally binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be
valid. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a binding
contract. In its traditional form, expressed as the requirement that in order for parties
to be able to enforce a promise, they must have given something or promised in
exchange or return for the promise. A contract must be met with or supported by
consideration to be enforceable. Also, only a person who has provided consideration
can enforce a contract.
Thank you, now I would like to pass to (Silas Tan) to continue another part of this
case law.

Thank you (Lau Kah Seng), now please let me briefly explain the definition of
promise.
Definition of promise
A common definition is in terms of the price of a promise, what one party must pay
mean not necessarily in financial terms for promise of other party such that promise
becomes legally binding means gives rise to valid contract.
Consideration for a particular promise exists where some right, interest, profit or
benefit accrues to the promisor as a direct result of some forbearance, detriment, loss
or responsibility that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promise. The
consideration must be executor or executed, but not past.
In other words, for promise to be legally binding, it must seek something in return.
Promise must show that they have bought the promise either Consideration is
executed by doing some act in return for it or Consideration is executory by promising
to do or refrain from doing some act in return for it. A type of bargain principle is at
work here.
Consideration is executed when a promise is actually executed, in exchange for
another promise to be executed in the future. Consideration is past when a promise
has been given or executed before and independently of the other promise.
Consideration is executory when a promise to do something in the future is given in
exchange for another promise to be done in the future. For example, I promised to
take you to lunch, and then when we got there I said "you must pay, because I have
given you the benefit of my company". This is past consideration and therefore NO
consideration.
Thank you, now I would like to pass the mic to (Ooi Choon Keong).

Thank you (Silas Tan), now I going to present the analysis of this case law.
Analysis:
Exceptions arise where there will be good consideration. If you promise to pay and
agree to the terms as requested. The services performed at the request of the promisor,
in circumstances that raise an implication that they are to be paid for. Subsequent
promise may become binding in a minors contract and so Roscorla had given no
consideration for the subsequent promise because promise made after sale had been
completed, there was no consideration and it was not enforceable.
The only consideration that had been alleged was the contract for the sale of the horse.
However, Roscorla had preceded the defendants promise. It was not part of the
bargain not given in exchange for the promise. Consequently it was not good
consideration.
Pass consideration is not valid consideration there are limited exceptions where
subsequent promise would be binding. Consideration must be given to the actual
promise Roscola makes. Consideration must be contemporaneous with the contract.
Thank you, now I would like to pass to (Eric Chen) to continue the case law
conclusion.

Thank you (Ooi Choon Keong), for the conclusion

Conclusion:
Past consideration is no consideration, it can be present or future Roscorla purchased
a horse from Thomas. After fulfilling the contract, Thomas added an additional
promise, which the horse would be in a good shape. After a while, Roscorla realized
that it was not in a good shape and wanted to claim Thomas. Court decided that there
has been no breach of contract because there has been no consideration for the
additional promise. For a claim we need an offer, acceptance and a consideration.
Therefore for obvious reason Roscorla lost.
Thank you, now I will pass to (Andrew Yap)
Thank you (eric chen).
Opinion..
In my opinion I think Thomas promise