Court King's Bench | ||
 | ||
Full case name Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins Citation(s) (1765) 3 Burr 1663, 97 ER 1035 Similar Bret v JS, Foakes v Beer, Carter v Boehm, Stilk v Myrick, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholl | ||
Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins (1765) 3 Burr 1663 is a case concerning letters of credit, and the doctrine of consideration. It has been recommended as a landmark case in English contract law. In it, Lord Mansfield tentatively expressed a view that the doctrine of consideration was redundant. It was doubted in a later case by the House of Lords, Rann v Hughes.
Contents
Facts
Pillans & Rose were in business together as mechant bankers in Rotterdam. They agreed to accept bills from White, an Irish merchant, on one condition. White had to make sure Van Mierop & Hopkins, a big London firm, would guarantee the bills. Van Mierop confirmed that they would do so and would guarantee a pre-existing duty of White to pay Pillans. However, before the bills were drawn on Van Mierop, White went insolvent. Van Mierop refused to honour the bills. Van Mierop argued that Pillans had provided no consideration for their guarantee since there was the rule that past consideration is not a good consideration.
Judgment
Lord Mansfield held that the doctrine of consideration should not be applied to preclude enforcement of promises made in mercantile transactions.
Wilmot J said,