The case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105 is a landmark decision in English contract law that deals with the doctrine of past consideration and implied assumpsit. This case is frequently cited in legal discussions concerning when past consideration may be regarded as good consideration to enforce a promise.
The ruling by the Court of King’s Bench clarified that a promise made after an act, performed at the promisor’s request, can be enforceable if there is an implied understanding that payment or reward would be expected.
This case remains a foundational authority on past consideration, highlighting important nuances of contract formation where the timing of the promise and the act do not align conventionally.
Facts of Lampleigh v Brathwait Case
The defendant, Brathwait, had unlawfully killed a man named Patrick Mahume. Following this incident, Brathwait requested the plaintiff, Lampleigh, to undertake the significant task of securing a royal pardon from the King.
Accepting this request, Lampleigh travelled at his own expense across the country to petition the King for the pardon. His efforts were successful, and the King granted the pardon, thereby securing Brathwait’s legal safety.
In response to this, Brathwait promised Lampleigh a payment of £100 in gratitude for his services. However, after some time, Brathwait failed to pay the promised amount. Consequently, Lampleigh sued Brathwait to recover the money.
The key issue that arose from the facts was that the promise to pay £100 was made after Lampleigh had already completed the act of securing the pardon. Brathwait contended that the act constituted past consideration, which, according to traditional contract law principles, does not amount to good consideration to support a subsequent promise. Therefore, Brathwait argued that there was no valid contract for payment and that the promise was unenforceable.
Legal Issue
The principal legal question before the Court of King’s Bench in Lampleigh v Brathwait was whether a promise to pay made after the completion of a service, which was initially performed at the promisor’s request, could be enforced despite being based on past consideration.
More specifically, the court was asked to consider:
- Whether past consideration can be good consideration.
- If an implied assumpsit arises when an act is done at the request of the promisor and payment is later promised.
- Whether the subsequent promise formed part of the same transaction and was therefore enforceable.
Lampleigh v Brathwait Judgement
The Court of King’s Bench ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Lampleigh. It held that the promise to pay £100 was enforceable despite being made after the act was performed. The court reasoned that there was an implied understanding or implied assumpsit that a fee would be paid for the service.
The court’s judgement emphasised that where a past benefit is conferred at the request of the promisor, and where a reward would reasonably be expected, the promisor is bound by the promise made after the act. This implied promise forms part of the original transaction between the parties.
Lord Bowen, speaking on the principles underlying the case, explained that a mere voluntary act or “courtesie” will not suffice as consideration. However, if the act was done upon the request of the promisor, then the subsequent promise to pay would be binding. This statement clarified that the original request carries an implied promise of payment, which becomes enforceable once a promise is made, even if it is after the fact.
Thus, the court recognised that the act of Lampleigh in securing the pardon was not a voluntary gift but performed at Brathwait’s request, creating an expectation of payment. The subsequent promise to pay was considered to be part of the same contract rather than a separate new promise unsupported by consideration.
Legal Principles Established
The ruling in Lampleigh v Brathwait stands as a critical precedent in English contract law on the doctrine of past consideration and implied contracts. The decision is important for the following legal principles:
- Past Consideration May Be Good Consideration Where It Was Requested
The case establishes that consideration which would otherwise be past can be valid if the act was done at the promisor’s request. Here, the service rendered by Lampleigh was requested by Brathwait, and thus the subsequent promise to pay was supported by valid consideration. - Implied Assumpsit or Implied Promise
The court recognised that when one party requests a service from another, there is an implied promise to pay for that service unless expressly agreed otherwise. This implied promise forms the basis of an assumpsit (an agreement or undertaking) even if not explicitly stated initially. - Single Transaction Doctrine
The promise to pay made after the act was considered part of the same overall transaction initiated by the request for help. Therefore, the promise did not create a new contract but was a binding part of the original agreement. - Distinction Between Voluntary Acts and Acts Done at Request
The judgement draws a clear distinction between acts done voluntarily (which generally do not constitute consideration) and those done at the express or implied request of the other party.
Conclusion
The case of Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Hob 105 remains a cornerstone in the legal understanding of consideration in English contract law. The Court of King’s Bench’s decision that a promise made after a service performed at the promisor’s request is enforceable changed the rigid approach to past consideration.
By recognising an implied promise or assumpsit, the court acknowledged the realities of commercial and personal dealings, where formal promises may sometimes follow the requested act. This principle ensures fairness by preventing promissors from avoiding obligations after benefitting from services.
In summary, Lampleigh v Brathwait established the principle that past consideration is valid if the act was done at the promisor’s request and a subsequent promise to pay was made. This has had a lasting impact on contract law, ensuring that justice prevails in transactions where formalities may have lagged behind the realities of the parties’ agreement.
