Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] Hob 105, 80 ER 255

Consideration is a necessary element for a contract to be valid. A contract without consideration is not legally enforceable.

• A voluntary act done out of courtesy does not constitute sufficient consideration to enforce a contract.

• However, if one party requests an action, and the other party acts on that request, the subsequent promise may have sufficient consideration.

The parties have to prove several points to establish the validity of the contract.

• if the request for assistance was made before the promise, the subsequent promise could still be enforceable due to the earlier request.

• To build a contract based on a promise following a past request, the action taken should align with the initial request.

• The action should be endeavoring to get a pardon. If there was evidence that the plaintiff attempted to do so, then the promise to pay would be considered valid.

Thomas Brathwait ( “Defendant”) had committed a felony by killing someone named Patrick Mahume.

• Afterward, he asked Anthony Lampleigh (“Plaintiff”) to use his efforts and connections to obtain a pardon from the King.

• Following Brathwait's request, Lampleigh undertook significant effort and expense to fulfill it. He traveled to various locations, including Royston, London, and Newmarket, to meet with the King or his representatives and secure a pardon for Brathwait.

• After Lampleigh undertook these efforts, Brathwait promised to pay him 100 pounds in return for his services. Despite this promise, Brathwait did not fulfill it.

Lampleigh filed an action against Brathwait, claiming that he was entitled to 100 pounds as promised because of his significant efforts to obtain the pardon.

• Lampleigh argued that the promise to pay was made in consideration of his past actions undertaken at Brathwait's request.

The case ultimately supported Lampleigh's claim, demonstrating that when a request for a favor is followed by action, a subsequent promise can be enforceable because the consideration is derived from the request and the effort made in response to it.

The Court determined that a mere act of voluntary courtesy could not serve as valid consideration to enforce an assumpsit.

• The court noted, however, that if such a courtesy was prompted by a request or appeal from the party who made the assumpsit, then it would be binding for the promise. 

In this case, even though the courtesy followed the request, it was not merely gratuitous; it was connected to the initial request, which indicated that the party's merits were influenced by the original suit.

This linkage between the courtesy and the preceding suit distinguished it from a mere promise without consideration, thereby establishing the necessary basis to uphold the assumpsit.

This case offers insight into the concept of consideration, an important element for contract enforceability. Contracts need consideration—something of value exchanged—to be legally binding.

In this case, Thomas Brathwait asked Anthony Lampleigh to secure a pardon for him from the King.

• Lampleigh undertook significant efforts, traveling and meeting with officials to achieve this.

• After Lampleigh's actions, Brathwait promised to pay him 100 pounds but failed to do so.

Lampleigh sued, arguing that his efforts were in response to Brathwait's request, which should make the promise enforceable.

• The court agreed, ruling that because Lampleigh's actions were a direct response to Brathwait's request, there was sufficient consideration to validate the contract.

This case demonstrates that consideration can be established by actions taken in response to a prior request, even if the promise comes later. It shows the importance of context in contract law and shows that an act done in response to a request can create a binding obligation to honor a promise made afterward.

Braithwaite (B) was convicted of unlawful killing and asked Lampleigh (L) to petition the king on his behalf.

L was successful and B offered him £100 a reward, but later refused to pay.

The court ruled that in general “a past benefit cannot be invoked as consideration for a future contract”.

However this principle didn’t apply where:

1. The past benefit had been at the request of the party who received it AND

2. Where there was an understanding/expectation that there would be a reward in the future (in this case created by the subsequent promise of B), the past consideration could be “assumed” into the agreement. 

Pao On v Lau Yiu