| Shadwell v Shadwell | |
| Court: | Court of Common Pleas |
| Full Name: | LANCELOT SHADWELL v CAYLEY SHADWELL AND ANOTHER, Executor and Executrix of Charles Shadwell, Deceased. |
| Citations: | [1860] EWHC CP J88, (1860) 9 CB (NS) 159 |
| Judges: | Erle CJ, Byles J, Keating J |
| Keywords: | Consideration, pre-existing duty, third party |
Shadwell v Shadwell [1860] EWHC CP J88 is an English contract law case, which held that it would be a valid consideration for the court to enforce a contract if a pre-existing duty was performed, so long as it was for a third party.
Mr Shadwell was engaged to marry Ellen Nicholl (this is a binding contract). His Uncle Charles promised £150 a year in a letter after the marriage. He wrote,
Sadly, Uncle Charles died. Mr Shadwell alleged that his Uncle had not paid in full before the death and claimed the outstanding money from his Uncle's estate. The estate refused to pay on the ground that Mr Shadwell had given no consideration for the promise to pay the £150 pa.
The Court of Common Pleas held that there was good consideration for the promise by the nephew marrying Ellen Nicholl, despite the fact that the marriage had already happened when the promise was made. There was good consideration in performing a pre-existing contract, if it was with a third party.
Erle CJ said,
Byles J dissented. In particular he disagreed on the factual question that the marriage was at the Uncle's request.
Keating J agreed with Erle CJ.
“The marriage affects the parties there to, but in the second degree it may be an object of interest with a near relative, and in that sense a benefit to him, this benefit is also derived from the plaintiff at the uncle’s request if the promise of the annuity was intended as an inducement to marriage and the averment that the plaintiff relying on the promise, marriage is an agreement that the promise was an inducement to the marriage. This is a consideration averred in the declaration. and it appears to me to be expressed in the letter construed with the surrounding circumstances.”
https://www.lawarticle.in/shedwell-vs-shedwell/