The Sanctity of Contracts in English Law - College of Social ...

Enforceability of Contracts at Common Law 11sole protagonist. 21 That would be quite wrong, forthe reports show that many of the other judges of histime shared his partiality for it; thus, to give onlyone example, Buller J., also in Hawlces v. Saunders,observed 22 : "I agree with my Lord, that the rulelaid down at the Bar, as to what is or is not a goodconsideration, is much too narrow. The true rule is,that wherever a defendant is under a moral obligation,or is liable in conscience and equity to pay, that isa sufficient consideration."But the tide of judicial opinion had already begunto flow against this general doctrine. In Rann v.Hughes 23 Skynner L.C.B. had already declared hisattitude in the following unmistakable terms :" It is undoubtedly true that every man is bythe law of nature bound to fulfil his engagements.It is equally true that the law of this countrysupplies no means, nor affords any remedy, tocompel the performance of an agreement madewithout sufficient consideration."And as the technical doctrine of consideration wasmore closely denned the more general test of moralitybecame less and less acceptable to the judges and theprofession. Thus in Littlefield v. Shee Zi Lord TenterdenC.J. observed that " the doctrine that a moralobligation is a sufficient consideration for a subsequent21Sir William Holdsworth describes him as having " wrestedthe meaning of the cases to justify his view that a moralobligation was a sufficient consideration": Holdsworth, SomeMakers of English Law, p. 152.2 2 At p. 294. See also Trueman v. Fenton (1777) 2 Cowp. 544.23(1765) 4 Brown, P.G. 27; 7 T.E. 350, n.2* (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 811, 813.