Kalpana Kalpana (Editor)

Shadwell v Shadwell

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Covid-19
Court  Court of Common Pleas
Shadwell v Shadwell
Citation(s)  [1860] EWHC CP J88, (1860) 9 CB (NS) 159
Judge(s) sitting  Erle CJ, Byles J, Keating J

Similar  Hartley v Ponsonby, Whittington v Seale Hayne, Jackson v Union Marine Insurance

Shadwell v shadwell 1860 142 er 62


Shadwell v Shadwell [1860] EWHC CP J88 is an English contract law case, which held that it would be a valid consideration for the court to enforce a contract if a pre-existing duty was performed, so long as it was for a third party.

Contents

Facts

Mr Shadwell was engaged to marry Ellen Nicholl (this is a binding contract). His Uncle Charles promised £150 a year in a letter after the marriage. He wrote,

Sadly, Uncle Charles died. Mr Shadwell alleged that his Uncle had not paid in full before the death and claimed the outstanding money from his Uncle's estate. The estate refused to pay on the ground that Mr Shadwell had given no consideration for the promise to pay the £150 pa.

Judgment

The Court of Common Pleas held that there was good consideration for the promise by the nephew marrying Ellen Nicholl, despite the fact that the marriage had already happened when the promise was made. There was good consideration in performing a pre-existing contract, if it was with a third party.

Erle CJ said,

Byles J dissented. In particular he disagreed on the factual question that the marriage was at the Uncle's request.

Keating J agreed with Erle CJ.

Shadwell v Shadwell Shadwell v Shadwell

References

Shadwell v Shadwell Wikipedia


Topics
 
B
i
Link
H2
L