Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615] EWHC KB J17 (24 March 1615)

Brathwait killed a man and requested Lampleigh to obtain a royal pardon. Lampleigh travelled extensively at his own expense to secure it. Brathwait later promised £100 but failed to pay. The court held that a prior request coupled with a subsequent promise creates binding consideration.

Facts

Thomas Brathwait had feloniously slain Patrick Mahume. Following this killing, Brathwait immediately requested Anthony Lampleigh to labour and endeavour to obtain a pardon from the King. Acting upon this request, Lampleigh undertook considerable efforts at his own expense, riding and journeying from London to Royston (where the King was), back to London, and then to Newmarket to secure the pardon. Subsequently, in consideration of Lampleigh’s efforts, Brathwait promised to pay Lampleigh £100, which he failed to pay. Lampleigh brought an action of assumpsit claiming £120 in damages.

Issues

Past Consideration

The central issue was whether past consideration could support a subsequent promise, making it enforceable. The defendant argued the consideration was past and therefore insufficient to uphold the assumpsit.

Sufficiency of Performance

A secondary objection raised was that Lampleigh’s declaration only showed riding up and down, with no proof that anything substantive was done upon arrival to obtain the pardon.

Judgment

The jury found for the plaintiff with damages of £100. The majority of judges (three against one) gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The court established an important principle regarding past consideration. It was agreed that a mere voluntary courtesy will not have sufficient consideration to uphold an assumpsit. However, if that courtesy was moved by a suit or request of the party who gives the assumpsit, it will bind. The promise, though it follows the act, is not naked but couples itself with the prior suit and the merits procured by that suit.

On the issue of performance, the court held that the substance of the plea was that Lampleigh did his endeavour to obtain the pardon as requested. The specific details of riding and journeying were merely to inform the court, and any other effectual endeavour according to the request would have sufficed. The issue and verdict cured any deficiencies in form.

Legal Principles

Past Consideration Exception

Where an act is done at the prior request of the promisor, a subsequent promise to pay for that act is enforceable. The prior request and subsequent promise are treated as one transaction, transforming what would otherwise be past consideration into valid consideration.

Executed vs Executory Consideration

The court distinguished between executed and executory consideration. In executed consideration, one cannot traverse the consideration separately because it is incorporated with the promise. In executory consideration, the counter-promise itself forms the consideration.

Implications

This case established the important exception to the rule that past consideration is no consideration. Where services are rendered at the express request of the promisor, and both parties understand that payment would be expected, a subsequent promise to pay is enforceable. This principle became foundational in contract law, later refined and applied in subsequent cases concerning implied promises and past consideration.

Verdict: Judgment for the plaintiff Lampleigh, with damages of £100. The subsequent promise to pay was held enforceable because the services were performed at the prior request of the defendant.

Source: Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615] EWHC KB J17 (24 March 1615)