Shadwell v Shadwell
Encyclopedia
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
See also
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle & Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
- Hamer v Sidway 124 NY 538 (1891)
- White v BluettWhite v BluettWhite v Bluett 23 LJ Ex 36 is an English contract law case, concerning the scope of consideration in English law.-Facts:Mr Bluett had lent his son some money. Mr Bluett died. The executor of Mr Bluett's estate was Mr White. He sued the son to pay back the money...
(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 - Hawes v Armstrong 1 N. C. 761, 1 Scott, 661, Tindall CJ
- Eastwood v Kenyon 11 Ad. & E. 438, 3 P. & D. 276