Comments

  1. avatar says

    sir, lampleigh v baithwait can also be defined as a past consideration ryt?
    since already the job was done by him before.. so he cant compensate or claim.. cause he is out of jail now?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Yes, but the Court said that there was an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum when he originally asked his friend to ride to London. All the Court had to do was determine what amounted to a reasonable sum

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Here’s what I found after a very quick look on google: “Lampleigh v Braithwait [1615] EWHC KB J 17

      Facts:
      D killed someone. Required P to get pardon for him. D promised to pay him 100 after it was done

      Ratio:
      A request with the implication of payment (a request you would expect to get paid) the court will link the subsequent promise to pay to the previous request – meaning one can recover on the promise

      Comments:
      Assumpsit: A promise or undertaking, founded on a consideration. This promise may be oral or in writing not under seal. It may be express or implied”

  2. avatar says

    hello sir, fantastic lecture!
    with reference to the case Lampleigh and Bralthwalth (if I m not spelling it wrong) is the contract enforceable
    since in the previous lecture u told us offer must be certain but in this case the offer to compensate is uncertain without any amount

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Hi Rich

      In Lampleigh v Braithwait, the judge interpreted the oral agreement as including a presumption that the survivor would pay “a reasonable amount” and then the judge decided on how much was reasonable. Whether that would be found the same nowadays (mind you, how many people nowadays face hanging – or worse still, being sent to Australia?) remains to be seen. Don’t forget that the Lampleigh case was a few hundred years ago!

  3. avatar says

    Sir, Under the privity of contract, assuming a i have company and i employed a debt recovery consultant to act on my behave on all long outstanding debts from my customers. Can this agency sue my debtors on my behave which is against the privity of contract as stated in the lecture???

  4. Profile photo of nzeadall says

    With reference to case Chappel V Neslte, we understand that Nesle won the case because it was able to proove that the Wrappers were of some value (specially in the increasing of chocolate sales), however did they have to pay the 6.25% to Chappel as stipulated in section 8 of the copyright act? thank you

  5. Profile photo of opsy4ril says

    Every time I listen to f4 paper lectures, It reminds me of peter- the lecturer. you’re a genuine blessing for all f4-student. He makes me fall in love with the subject even more.

Leave a Reply