sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişholiganbetjojobetholiganbet girişjojobet girişcasibom girişvaycasinoholiganbet girişpusulabetjojobet girişholiganbetpusulabetvaycasino girişholiganbet girişgrandpashabetmarsbahiscratosroyalbetmatbetradissonbetvaycasino girişcasibom girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişteosbetteosbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişエクスネスvaycasinocasibomcasibomjojobetholiganbetkulisbetkulisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişteosbet girişteosbetmedusabahismedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahis giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbet girişatlasbetngsbahisngsbahis girişngsbahisngsbahis girişelexbetelexbet girişelexbetelexbet girişkalebetkalebet girişkalebetkalebet girişenbetenbet girişenbetenbet girişrinabetrinabet girişrinabetrinabet girişrinabet girişrinabet girişteosbet girişteosbetwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişaresbetaresbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmatbetmatbet girişmatbetmatbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişrinabetrinabet girişrinabetrinabet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişbahiscasinobahiscasino girişbahiscasinobahiscasino girişteosbetteosbet girişteosbetteosbet girişorisbetorisbet girişorisbetorisbet girişenbetenbet girişenbetenbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişJojobet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişcoinbarcoinbar girişodeonbetodeonbet girişlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişpusulabetpusulabetrinabetrinabetbetkolikbetkolikkulisbetkulisbetmeritkingmeritkingmegabahismegabahislunabetlunabetartemisbetartemisbetbahiscasinobahiscasinomedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahisodeonbet girişodeonbetodeonbetteosbet girişteosbetteosbetkalebet girişkalebetkalebetnakitbahis girişnakitbahisnakitbahiselitcasino girişelitcasinoelitcasinobetbox girişbetboxbetboxjojobetmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingcoinbar girişcoinbarcoinbarefesbet girişefesbetefesbetCasibomCasibom girişCasibom güncel girişCasibomSekabetmatbetromabet
Skip to content
Home » Shadwell v Shadwell 

Shadwell v Shadwell 

The case of Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) is a significant English contract law decision that clarified the concept of consideration where a party performs a duty already owed under a separate contract with a third party. The court held that performance of such a pre-existing duty could still amount to valid consideration for a promise made by another person, provided that it was intended as an inducement to perform that duty.

This decision played an important role in shaping the law on consideration and continues to be cited as an example of how a contract may be enforced even when a third-party obligation exists.

Facts of Shadwell v Shadwell Case

In Shadwell v Shadwell, the plaintiff, Mr Shadwell, was a young barrister engaged to marry Miss Ellen Nicholl. His uncle, Mr Charles Shadwell, was supportive of the match and promised to provide financial assistance to his nephew after the marriage.

On 11 August 1838, from Gray’s Inn, the uncle wrote a letter expressing both his approval of the marriage and his commitment to help financially. In this letter, he stated that he would pay his nephew £150 annually during his lifetime and until the nephew’s professional income as a chancery barrister reached 600 guineas a year.

The uncle’s exact words included:

“I am glad to hear of your intended marriage with Ellen Nicholl, and, as I promised to assist you at starting, I am happy to tell you that I will pay to you £150 yearly during my lifetime and until your annual income from your profession of a chancery barrister shall amount to 600 guineas, of which your own admission will be the only evidence that I shall receive or require.

Your ever affectionate uncle,
Charles Shadwell.”

Following the marriage, the uncle paid twelve instalments of the agreed amount. However, after his death, the payments ceased, and his estate refused to continue making them. The nephew then sued his uncle’s estate, claiming the remaining payments that had not been fulfilled during his uncle’s lifetime.

The defence argued that there was no valid consideration for the uncle’s promise. They claimed that the promise amounted to a voluntary gift, not a binding contract. The uncle had made the promise out of affection and goodwill, not as part of a legally enforceable agreement.

Moreover, the marriage contract was between the nephew and his fiancée, not with the uncle, and therefore, it could not constitute consideration for the uncle’s promise.

Issue

The central issue before the court in Shadwell v Shadwell was whether the nephew’s marriage, which was already an obligation under a separate engagement contract with his fiancée, could amount to sufficient consideration for the uncle’s promise to pay an annuity of £150 per year.

In other words, the question was whether the performance of a duty already imposed by a contract with a third party (in this case, the marriage) could be valid consideration for a promise made by another person (the uncle).

Arguments in Shadwell v Shadwell

The plaintiff (the nephew) contended that his marriage was indeed consideration for the promise. He argued that by proceeding with the marriage, he had made a material change in his position, taken on new responsibilities, and incurred potential financial obligations.

Moreover, the uncle’s promise had been an inducement that encouraged him to go ahead with the marriage. Therefore, the marriage should be treated as valid consideration for the uncle’s commitment to pay the annual sum.

The defendant (the uncle’s estate) argued that the nephew’s act of marriage was merely the fulfilment of a pre-existing duty under his engagement contract with Miss Nicholl. As such, it could not be regarded as consideration for the uncle’s promise because the obligation was owed to a third party and not to the uncle himself. The estate maintained that the promise was gratuitous and not legally binding.

Shadwell v Shadwell Judgement

The Court of Common Pleas found in favour of the plaintiff. The majority of the judges held that there was good and sufficient consideration for the uncle’s promise. Although the marriage was a pre-existing obligation under a separate contract with a third party, it was performed at least in part in reliance upon and induced by the uncle’s promise.

Chief Justice Sir William Erle delivered the leading judgement. He reasoned that the performance of the marriage contract constituted both a potential loss to the nephew and a benefit to the uncle. He observed that, while marriage might be a source of personal happiness, it could also involve financial obligations and liabilities that might become burdensome if the promised support were not forthcoming.

The uncle’s promise, made as an inducement to the marriage, could thus be construed as a request that the marriage take place, and the nephew’s compliance with that request amounted to valid consideration.

Erle CJ stated:

“When I answer this in the affirmative, I am aware that a man’s marriage with the woman of his choice is in one sense a boon, and in that sense the reverse of a loss: yet, as between the plaintiff and the party promising to supply an income to support the marriage, it may well be also a loss.

The plaintiff may have made a most material change in his position, and induced the object of his affection to do the same, and may have incurred pecuniary liabilities resulting in embarrassments which would be in every sense a loss if the income which had been promised should be withheld.”

He further reasoned that the marriage might also bring a benefit to the uncle as a close relative interested in his nephew’s well-being and settlement in life. Thus, the uncle’s promise was not merely a voluntary gift but was supported by the nephew’s act, which the uncle had sought to encourage.

Justice Keating J agreed with Erle CJ’s reasoning and supported the view that there was valid consideration for the uncle’s promise.

However, Byles J dissented. He disagreed with the factual basis upon which the majority relied, particularly the notion that the marriage was undertaken at the uncle’s request. Byles J maintained that the marriage was not induced by the uncle’s promise but was rather an independent act between the nephew and his fiancée, and therefore could not constitute consideration.

Decision / Outcome

The court held that the performance of a duty imposed by a contract with a third party could amount to valid consideration where the promise was made as an inducement for that performance. In Shadwell v Shadwell, the nephew’s marriage, though already agreed upon under a separate engagement, was treated as good consideration because it was carried out in reliance on the uncle’s promise and at his implied request.

Consequently, the court concluded that there was a legally enforceable contract between the uncle and the nephew, and the uncle’s promise to pay £150 annually was binding upon his estate.

Legal Principle and Significance

The decision in Shadwell v Shadwell established an important precedent in contract law relating to consideration. It confirmed that performing an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can serve as valid consideration for a new promise, provided that the new promisor receives some benefit or the promisee incurs a detriment as a result.

The case demonstrated the flexibility of the doctrine of consideration, showing that courts will look beyond strict contractual formalities to determine whether a genuine bargain or inducement exists. The ruling recognised that personal or familial relationships can still give rise to enforceable contracts if the necessary elements of consideration and intention are present.

This principle was later affirmed in cases such as Scotson v Pegg (1861), where it was held that the performance of a pre-existing obligation owed to a third party could be good consideration for a separate promise. Together, these cases illustrate that the law values the substance of an agreement (namely, whether the promisee has acted in reliance upon or at the request of the promisor) rather than merely focusing on whether a duty already existed elsewhere.

Conclusion

The ruling in Shadwell v Shadwell remains a cornerstone of English contract law for its treatment of pre-existing duties and the scope of valid consideration. By recognising that the nephew’s marriage constituted a sufficient act of reliance and detriment, the court affirmed that even obligations owed to third parties may support an enforceable promise.

Through this decision, the court clarified that a promise made as an inducement for a pre-existing contractual act could create binding obligations if the promisee alters their position or acts to their potential detriment in reliance upon it.

Shadwell v Shadwell thus continues to serve as an instructive example of how the courts interpret consideration in the context of family promises and third-party obligations, reinforcing the idea that the law of contract seeks to uphold genuine bargains and acts of reliance rather than purely formal exchanges.