Lampleigh v Brathwait
An act done at the promisor's request before a promise of payment can support the promise.
Facts
Thomas Brathwait had killed a man and asked Anthony Lampleigh to do all he could to obtain a pardon for him from King James I. Lampleigh spent considerable time and effort travelling to see the King and seeking a pardon. Afterwards, Brathwait promised to pay him £100 for his trouble but did not pay, arguing that Lampleigh's services were past consideration.
Legal principle
The court held that the promise was enforceable. Where an act is done at the promisor's request, and the parties understand that it will be paid for, a later promise to pay can be treated as fixing the amount of a payment already impliedly promised when the request was made. The request and the later promise are treated as part of the same transaction. The principle was restated by the Privy Council in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long.
Related cases on consideration and promissory estoppel
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
- Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643
- Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
- Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
- D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
- Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
- Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
