Weeks v Tybald (1605) Noy 11
Parties not bound by general words in relation to a purported marriage agreement
Facts
The case derives from 1605. The defendant who was the father of a woman to whom the plaintiff sought to “woo” with the intention of marriage.
Issue
The plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged promise made by the defendant with regard to marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant’s daughter. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant spoke with the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was given liberty to come to the house of the defendant to “woo” his daughter.” There was an alleged “communication of marriage” between the plaintiff and the daughter of the defendant. Furthermore, at the purported meeting at the house of the defendant, the defendant is purported to have immediately affirmed and made it known that he would give the plaintiff 100l and would allow the plaintiff to marry his daughter with his consent.
Held
The Court of King’s Bench observed that it was not averred nor declared by the plaintiff to whom the relevant words were spoken. Accordingly, the Court held that it was unreasonable that the defendant should be bound by such general words which may be “spoken to excite suitors.” Accordingly, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed. The case is authority for the proposition that an obviously exaggerated claim (such as the financial payment suggested by the defendant) may preclude a clear intention to create legal relations. It must be clear that a reasonable person would consider a particular representation as a promise binding in law. (See Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1975] 1 WLR 406).
271 words
Updated 20 March 2026
This article summarises the historical contract law case of Weeks v Tybald (1605) Noy 11, which remains a recognised early authority on offer and acceptance and intention to create legal relations. The case itself and the legal principle it illustrates — that general or exaggerated words may not constitute a binding promise — remain part of the foundational common law background to this area.
The cross-reference to Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1975] 1 WLR 406 is accurate as a modern authority on intention to create legal relations, and that case remains good law.
Readers should note one point of accuracy: the article refers to ‘the Court of King’s Bench,’ which is a reasonable description of the court for the period, though some sources cite this case without specifying the court precisely given its antiquity. This does not materially affect the legal principle stated. The article is otherwise broadly accurate as a brief case summary of a historical authority, though students should be aware that the doctrine of intention to create legal relations has been substantially developed by later case law and should consult modern authorities alongside this early example.
