CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Roscorla v Thomas

milestone judicial case in contracts

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionFeb 11, 2026
Entity authorityQ25183800 ↗
Source-derived summary

Roscorla v Thomas is a notable case in English contract law which demonstrates that past conduct is not sufficient consideration to support a contract. Past consideration is not a good consideration.

Facts

An agreement for the purchase of a horse had been completed between buyer and seller. Following the completion of the contract, the seller made a warranty that the horse was "free from vice". Upon delivery, it was discovered by the buyer that the horse was vicious in behaviour. The buyer consequently sued.

Judgment

Lord Denman CJ delivered the judgment of the Court.

"It may be taken as a general rule, subject to exceptions not applicable to this case, that the promise must be coextensive with the consideration...

Editorial summary

“Roscorla v Thomas” enters the record as milestone judicial case in contracts. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Roscorla, Thomas and milestone can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current 119-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Roscorla, Thomas and milestone.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Roscorla v Thomas” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Roscorla, Thomas and milestone provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q25183800. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Roscorla v Thomas”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Roscorla v Thomas primary sources, Roscorla v Thomas archive and Roscorla research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Roscorla v Thomas”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Roscorla v Thomas” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.