In [ case ], the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise to receive it in full satisfaction of his claim. The money was duly paid but the plaintiff still sued the defendant. Lord Tenterden maintained that: 'if the father did pay the smaller sum in satisfaction of this debt, it is a bar to the plaintiff now recovering against the son because, by suing the son, he commits a fraud on the father, whom he induced to advance him money on the faith of such advance being a discharge of his son from further liability.'
Answer
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ], the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise to receive it in full satisfaction of his claim. The money was duly paid but the plaintiff still sued the defendant. Lord Tenterden maintained that: 'if the father did pay the smaller sum in satisfaction of this debt, it is a bar to the plaintiff now recovering against the son because, by suing the son, he commits a fraud on the father, whom he induced to advance him money on the faith of such advance being a discharge of his son from further liability.'
Answer
?
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ], the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise to receive it in full satisfaction of his claim. The money was duly paid but the plaintiff still sued the defendant. Lord Tenterden maintained that: 'if the father did pay the smaller sum in satisfaction of this debt, it is a bar to the plaintiff now recovering against the son because, by suing the son, he commits a fraud on the father, whom he induced to advance him money on the faith of such advance being a discharge of his son from further liability.'
Answer
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557, the defendant's son owed the plaintiff £18. The defendant's father then made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he promised to pay him £9 in return for the plaintiff's promise
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.