Abstract

This paper aims to rethink the reason why nineteenth century common lawyers required a promise to be ‘accepted’. James Gordley expresses his opinion on this matter that they did it just in order to answer the annoying question of why and when a promise was binding. He might be right if he were dealing with the nineteenth century civil lawyers. But he cannot explain why common law of contract still employs the doctrine of consideration and refuses to replace the concept of promise with the notion of offer, despite the doctrine of offer and acceptance. This paper reminds readers that the word promise is rather moral than legal. Thenineteenth century common lawyers wanted not to lose the moral force of this word, so they could not exchange a promise for an offer. What they actually did is not to require a promise to be ‘accepted’ but to require ‘a promise’ to be accepted.