Callisher v Bischoffsheim
Encyclopedia
Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1869-70) LR 5 QB 449 is an English contract law
case concerning consideration. It held that the compromise of a disputed claim made bonâ fide
is a good consideration for a promise, even if it ultimately appears that the claim was wholly unfounded.
, and was about to take proceedings to enforce payment. In consideration that the plaintiff would forbear taking such proceedings for an agreed time, the defendant promised to deliver to Callisher a set of Honduras Railway Loan Bonds. But then, they did not deliver the debentures, and argued that their promise to do so was unenforceable because the original suit was groundless.
Blackburn J concurred.
Lush J and Mellor J stated their concurrence.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case concerning consideration. It held that the compromise of a disputed claim made bonâ fide
Bona Fide
Bona Fide is a studio album from rock band Wishbone Ash. It is the first studio album in six years and is the only studio album to feature guitarist Ben Granfelt...
is a good consideration for a promise, even if it ultimately appears that the claim was wholly unfounded.
Facts
Callisher alleged that money was owed to him from the Government of HondurasHonduras
Honduras is a republic in Central America. It was previously known as Spanish Honduras to differentiate it from British Honduras, which became the modern-day state of Belize...
, and was about to take proceedings to enforce payment. In consideration that the plaintiff would forbear taking such proceedings for an agreed time, the defendant promised to deliver to Callisher a set of Honduras Railway Loan Bonds. But then, they did not deliver the debentures, and argued that their promise to do so was unenforceable because the original suit was groundless.
Judgment
The Queen's Bench held the contract was enforceable because even if the suit was groundless, forbearing to sue could count as a valuable consideration. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the following.Blackburn J concurred.
Lush J and Mellor J stated their concurrence.