A Quick Summary of Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

Case name & citation: Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWHC KB J17; (1615) Hobart 105; 80 ER 255

Court: King’s Bench Division
Area of law: Past consideration; exception to the rule of past consideration under contract law

The case of Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) provides a classic illustration of how past consideration can sometimes be recognized as valid in contract law. Here’s a summary of the key points:

Facts (Lampleigh v Braithwaite)

Braithwaite was convicted of murder and requested Lampleigh to obtain a pardon from the King for him. Lampleigh put in a lot of effort and incurred costs on travelling to the King. He successfully obtained the pardon and delivered it to Braithwaite. Subsequently, Braithwaite promised to pay Lampleigh £100 for his efforts. But he never paid up and as a result, Lampleigh sued.

Issue

The main issue was whether Lampleigh’s action (obtaining the pardon) constituted valid consideration for Braithwaite’s promise to pay, given that the consideration was provided before the promise was made.

Decision in Lampleigh v Braithwaite

The court held that despite the consideration being past (the pardon was obtained before Braithwaite’s promise), it was valid. This was because Lampleigh’s act was performed at Braithwaite’s request and in the context of the understanding that there would be payment. The court found that the promise to pay could be connected to the request, making it part of a single agreement.

Legal Principle

Past Consideration: As a general rule, past consideration is not sufficient to form a valid contract. This means that the consideration must be contemporaneous with or occur after the promise, not before. An example of this can be seen in the case of Re McArdle (1951).

Exception: In cases where an act is performed at the request of the promisor and there is an implied understanding of payment, past consideration can be recognized as valid. This principle is illustrated in Lampleigh v Braithwaite, where the court considered that at the time Braithwaite requested Lampleigh’s help, the circumstances implied that Lampleigh would be paid.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

A Quick Summary of Price v Easton (1833)

Case name & citation: Price v Easton (1833) 4 B & Ad 433; 110 ER 518

Court and jurisdiction: Court of the King’s Bench
Judgment date: 17 January 1833
Area of law: Privity of contract under law; consideration

The case of Price v Easton (1833) (KB) illustrates the principle of privity of contract, which dictates that only parties to a contract can enforce its terms. Here’s a summary of the case and its implications:

Facts of Price v Easton

1. A builder owed money to Price.

2. Easton agreed with the builder that if the builder did some work for Easton, Easton would pay the debt to Price.

3. The builder completed the work, but Easton did not pay Price.

4. Price, unable to recover from the builder and having no contractual relationship with Easton, sued Easton to enforce the promise.

Issue that arose

Was Price entitled to enforce Easton’s promise to the builder to pay the debt to Price?

Decision in Price v Easton

No, Price was not entitled to enforce the promise.

Reasoning

Privity of Contract: According to this doctrine, only parties directly involved in a contract have the right to enforce it. Since Price was not a party to the agreement between Easton and the builder, he could not enforce Easton’s promise. He had given no consideration for the arrangement between the parties.

Legal Precedent: At common law, a third party, even if they benefit from a contract, does not have the standing to enforce the terms of that contract.

Implications

Doctrine of Privity: The case reinforces the principle that only those who are parties to a contract can sue to enforce its terms or claim damages. A third party who benefits from a contract but is not a party to it cannot bring an action to enforce the contract.

Contractual Enforcement: To be entitled to enforce a contract, a party must have a direct contractual relationship with the promisor.

Limitations on Third-Party Claims: This case highlights the limitations on third parties seeking to claim benefits under agreements to which they are not a party.

In modern legal systems, many jurisdictions have modified this rule through legislation allowing third parties to enforce certain contracts under specific conditions, but the principle illustrated in Price v Easton remains a foundational element in contract law.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Re McArdle [1951]: A Quick Summary

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Re McArdle [1951]: A Quick Summary

Case name & citation: Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669; [1951] 1 All ER 905

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal; England and Wales

Area of law: Consideration – past consideration

What is the case about?

This case dealt with the issue of past consideration and whether or not a wife was entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred on the repair of a property in which her husband and his siblings were beneficiaries.

Case facts (Re McArdle)

The case involved Majorie McArdle and her husband’s siblings. Majorie McArdle performed work refurbishing a house that was part of the estate of her husband’s father, who had passed away. The house was left to the husband’s mother for life and then on trust for Majorie’s husband and his four siblings.

After the repairing work was completed by Majorie, all the brothers and sisters signed a document agreeing that in consideration for her carrying out the repair work, the executors would pay her £480 from the proceeds of the house’s sale. This was to contribute financially towards the costs incurred for the house refurbishment.

However, no such payment was made to her.

Judgment of the Court in Re McArdle

The Court decided that the promise to make the payment was not binding. The reason was that the promise to make the payment came after the consideration (Majorie’s repair work) had already been performed. Thus, it wasn’t supported by valid consideration.

Quote from the case

“As the work had in fact all been done and nothing remained to be done by Mrs. Marjorie McArdle at all, the consideration was wholly past consideration, and, therefore, the beneficiaries’ agreement for the repayment to her of the £488 out of the estate was nudum pactum, a promise with no consideration to support it. That being so, it is impossible for her to rely upon this document as constituting an equitable assignment for valuable consideration.”

(As per Jenkins LJ at p 678)

Past consideration

The decision in Re McArdle was based on the concept of past consideration.

Past consideration is generally not considered valid in contract law because, for a contract to be legally enforceable, consideration should flow concurrently with or after the promise. In this case, the promise of payment was made after the work was completed, making it unenforceable due to “past consideration.”

References:

You might also like:

More from contract law:

A Case Summary of Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

Case name & citation: Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234; [1842] EWHC QB J74; (1842) 114 ER 496

Court and jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench, England and Wales
Decided on: 30 May 1842
The learned judge: Lord Denman C.J.
Area of law: Consideration – past consideration

A Quick Summary

Roscorla v Thomas (1842) is a landmark case that threw light on the invalidity of past consideration. Here, it was held that after a horse had been sold, a warranty provided as to its soundness was not valid as it had no consideration in support thereof. Past consideration relating to the sale of the horse was not sufficient.

Given below are the case details.

What happened in Roscorla v Thomas?

1. Purchase of horse

In a typical sale transaction, the plaintiff purchased a horse from the defendant.

2. Warranty

Sometime after the sale was completed, the defendant assured the plaintiff that the horse was “sound and free from vice.”

3. False assurance

The assurance provided by the defendant proved to be false as the horse was found to be very vicious and unmanageable.

4. Legal issue

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract but was unable to sue the defendant based on this false assurance.

The question that arose was:

Was there good consideration for the promise that the horse was free from vice?

The Court found that the plaintiff had provided no consideration for this promise because the sale had already been completed before the warranty was given.

5. Breaking down the Court’s decision

The payment for the horse had already taken place, and it was considered past consideration. Past consideration is not valid in contract law because it is something that has already been completed and cannot be linked to a new promise made after the original one.

In this case, the warranty as regards the horse’s condition was made after the sale of the horse and thus, it could not be directly connected to the price paid for the horse. As the price paid for the horse could not be deemed a consideration for the warranty, the plaintiff had no grounds to sue the defendant on finding that the horse was not free from vice. The contract of sale had already been enforced and no fresh consideration was given for the warranty.

6. Conclusion

The warranty of the horse’s soundness had nothing new offered in exchange for it. Hence, it was not enforceable.

Quote from the case (Roscorla v Thomas)

“It may be taken as a general rule, subject to exceptions not applicable to this case, that the promise must be coextensive with the consideration. In the present case, the only promise that would result from the consideration, as stated, and be coextensive with it, would be to deliver the horse upon request.”

(As per Lord Denman C.J.)

Past consideration is no consideration

Roscorla v Thomas applied the basic principle that “past consideration is not good consideration.”

Consideration for a promise must be contemporaneous, meaning it should be performed or promised at the same time as the promise, and not something that has already been done in the past.

References:

You might also like:

More from contract law: