# Talk:Slade's Case

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slade's Case/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
All looks fine. Looks to be well-written and covers the topic well. No issues that would preclude passing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Bret v JS defining consideration earlier than Coke? I'm not so sure that Boyer's right if he's arguing that Coke was the first person to do it in his arguments - first recorded perhaps, not first. Also, is there a citation from Coke's own reports for this? Wikidea 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these updates are alright - I have added a reference to Bret v JS within the footnote and saying that this case was one of the first to talk about consideration. It would be interesting to know who Coke was talking to at the time - maybe the whole judiciary was being swung round, with this case ongoing, that English law should adopt the doctrine? And I wonder how that linked to the arguments that were being put forward over the claim for debt, as a reason for getting a claim for it back when the contract failed? Wikidea 21:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea, actually. I have a textbook on the history of contract law, with a particular focus on consideration, somewhere in my library; I'll try and fish it out in a few months (submitting dissertations is fun) for a History of English contract law article, and this'll hopefully make an impact as well. Ironholds (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's Allen D. Boyer from the bibliography, but the first time he just pops up with a random musing, his second rumination is preceded by a vague appellation, and his first name isn't shown in the main article at all. Maybe link him if he has a Wp. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)