Thomas v. Thomas centered around whether Eleanor Thomas could continue living in her deceased husband's house. Her husband had stated before his death that he wanted Eleanor to live there, and his executor Samuel Thomas agreed if Eleanor paid 1 pound annually and made repairs. Eleanor lived there for years under this agreement. However, after Samuel died, his executor Benjamin Thomas refused, claiming lack of consideration. The court ruled that Eleanor's annual payment and obligation to repair constituted consideration, making the agreement enforceable. Motive alone does not constitute consideration; there must be an exchange of something of value.

1. THOMAS V. THOMAS

2. FACTS
The evening before the death of (John Thomas),
The deceased husband of (Eleanor Thomas),
stated in front of witnesses that he wanted Eleanor
to be permitted to live in his house after his death,
john’s executor (Samuel Thomas) agreed in
consideration of john’s desire , if only she furnishes
one pound annually to Samuel and make
necessary repairs to the house in exchange for
living there, Eleanor lived in the house for several
years, Until Samuel died, His executor ( Benjamin
Thomas ) refused to continue the agreement
claiming that consideration was lacking, The court
entered judgment in favor of Eleanor and Benjamin

3. WAS THERE CONSIDERATION ?
“ Consideration must be something of value in
the eyes of the law ’’
Fulfilling John’s desire to give Eleanor is not
consideration, Because a motive cannot amount to
consideration, The wife didn’t do anything in return,
However, The plaintiff’s ( Eleanor ) payment of 1
pound per year and keeping the house in good
repair was sufficient consideration to make the
agreement enforceable.

4. HOLDING & RULE
Lord Denman CJ
Provision for payment and the obligation to repair is
part of an express agreement and is quit sufficient
consideration for a contract, The moral feeling
which motivated the arrangement is not relevant.
Judge Patteson J
Motive is not the same thing as consideration,
Consideration exists if there is some benefit to the
plaintiff ( Eleanor ) or some detriment to the
defendant ( Benjamin ), But at all events it must be
moving from the plaintiff.

5. RATIO
• It does not matter how much consideration
there is, Courts are not going to look at the
adequacy of the consideration.
• A motive for giving a gift is not sufficient
consideration.
• Incidental costs attached to gifts are not
consideration.
Disposition
Discharged _ Judgment for Eleanor Thomas.