FACTS
The defendant had killed a man and was due to be hung for murder. He asked the claimant to do everything in his power to obtain a pardon from the King. The claimant went to great efforts and managed to get the pardon requested. The defendant then promised to pay him £100 for his efforts but never paid up.
HELD
The court found in favour of the plaintiff. The promise was indeed given after the plaintiff had acted. However, the plaintiff had acted upon a request made by the defendant. The court considered that the original request by the defendant contained an implied promise to pay the plaintiff for his efforts. Bowen LJ said:
‘A mere voluntary courtesie will not have a consideration to uphold an assumpsit. But if that courtiesie were moved by a suit or request of the party that gives the assumpsit, it will bind’.
Consequently, the court held that if A does something for B at their request and afterward B promises to pay A for their trouble, then that promise is good consideration. The later promise was considered to be part of the same single transaction and was, therefore, enforceable.
No comments:
Post a Comment