Legal Case Summary
Pearce v Brooks (1865) LR 1 Ex 213
Lawful contracts made for immoral purposes are illegal.
Facts
The defendant was a prostitute who hired a carriage from the plaintiff, who was a coachbuilder, on hire purchase terms to be paid for in instalments. She wanted the carriage to attract customers. The defendant did not pay the second instalment on the carriage and returned it in a damaged condition, in breach of the agreement. At first instance the jury found on the evidence that the coachbuilder knew that she was a prostitute at the time the contract was made. The coachbuilder sued for non-payment and for the damage.
Issues
It was argued that, as the coachbuilder knew the defendant was a prostitute, he expected to be paid out of the profits of prostitution. He, therefore, knew of the immoral purpose to which the carriage was to be put and should not be allowed to recover on the contract.
Decision / Outcome
The court found for the defendant. It was immaterial that the immoral purpose was not part of the contract or whether the claimant was to be paid out of the proceeds. Bramwell B distinguished between a contract to supply a prostitute with a carriage to be used to attract customers and a contract to supply her a pair of shoes, as shoes were one of the necessities of life. It was part of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio that anyone who supplies something for the performance an illegal act with knowledge that it was to be used for that purpose cannot sue for the price of it. An immoral purpose was the same thing as an illegal purpose. Therefore, the plaintiff could not recover.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Pearce v Brooks (1865) LR 1 Ex 213 remains historically accurate. The case is still regularly cited as an illustration of the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle in the context of illegality and immorality in contract law.
Readers should be aware that the law on illegality in contracts has developed significantly since 1865. The Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 substantially reformed the approach English courts take to illegality, replacing the earlier rigid rules with a range-of-factors methodology. Under Patel v Mirza, courts consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition that has been transgressed, whether denying the claim would be a proportionate response, and public policy more broadly. This means that the outcome in a case similar to Pearce v Brooks might today involve a more nuanced analysis than the judgment in that case reflects. The case retains its value as a foundational authority and is still cited in academic and professional contexts, but students should study it alongside the modern illegality framework established by Patel v Mirza and subsequently applied in cases such as Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43.
