Pillans v Van Mierop
| Pillans v Van Mierop & Hopkins | |
|---|---|
Lord Mansfield , Wilmot J, Yates J and Aston J |
Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins (1765) 3 Burr 1663 is a case concerning
Facts
Pillans & Rose were in business together as merchant bankers in
Judgment
Lord Mansfield held that the doctrine of consideration should not be applied to preclude enforcement of promises made in mercantile transactions.
This is a matter of great consequence to trade and commerce, in every light...
I take it, that the ancient notion about the want of consideration was for the sake of evidence only: for when it is reduced to writing, as in covenants, specialities, bonds, etc, there was no objection to the want of consideration. And the Statute of Frauds proceeded on the same principle. In commercial cases amongst merchants, the want of consideration is not an objection...
If a man agrees that he will do the formal part, the law looks upon it (in the case of acceptance of a bill) as if actually done. This is an engagement "to accept the bill, if there was a necessity to accept it; and to pay it, when due:" and they could not afterwards retract. It would be very destructive to trade, and to trust in commercial dealing if they could.
Wilmot J said,
whether this be an actual acceptance, or an agreement to accept, it ought equally to bind. An agreement to accept a bill "to be drawn in the future" would (as it seems to me) by connection and relation, bind on account of the antecedent relation. And I see no difference between itself being before or after the bill was drawn.
See also
Notes
- ^ G McMeel, ch 2 in C Mitchell and P Mitchell, Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008)
- ^ 17 TR 350.
References
- G McMeel, ch 2 in C Mitchell and P Mitchell, Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008)
- Grotius, War & Peace, Book II, Ch 9, para 6, 703-4 and 719-20