28:
114:. They agreed to accept bills from White, an Irish merchant, on one condition. White had to make sure Van Mierop & Hopkins, a big London firm, would guarantee the bills. Van Mierop confirmed that they would do so and would guarantee a pre-existing duty of White to pay Pillans. However, before the bills were drawn on Van Mierop, White went
150:
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
141:
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
133:
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
235:
118:. Van Mierop refused to honour the bills and argued that Pillans had not provided consideration for their guarantee since there was the rule that past consideration is not a good consideration.
280:
126:
Lord
Mansfield held that the doctrine of consideration should not be applied to preclude enforcement of promises made in mercantile transactions.
285:
98:
260:
265:
210:
183:
138:
proceeded on the same principle. In commercial cases amongst merchants, the want of consideration is not an objection...
255:
275:
270:
225:
96:
tentatively expressed a view that the doctrine of consideration was redundant. However, in
89:
8:
135:
81:
240:
162:
130:
This is a matter of great consequence to trade and commerce, in every light...
93:
66:
249:
85:
27:
142:
destructive to trade, and to trust in commercial dealing if they could.
230:
115:
111:
110:
Pillans & Rose were in business together as merchant bankers in
217:
236:
The Whole Duty of Man
According to the Law of Nature
247:
88:. It has been recommended as a landmark case in
47:Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins
208:G McMeel, ch 2 in C Mitchell and P Mitchell,
181:G McMeel, ch 2 in C Mitchell and P Mitchell,
77:Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins
102:the House of Lords doubted the presumption.
26:
80:(1765) 3 Burr 1663 is a case concerning
226:Book II, Ch 9, para 6, 703-4 and 719-20
286:United Kingdom constitutional case law
248:
281:Court of King's Bench (England) cases
211:Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract
184:Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract
13:
21:Pillans v Van Mierop & Hopkins
14:
297:
261:English enforceability case law
69:, Wilmot J, Yates J and Aston J
266:English consideration case law
190:
175:
56:(1765) 3 Burr 1663, 97 ER 1035
1:
202:
7:
155:
121:
10:
302:
151:after the bill was drawn.
65:
60:
52:
42:
34:
25:
20:
169:
105:
241:Ch IX, para V-IX, 110-1
153:
144:
84:, and the doctrine of
148:
128:
256:Lord Mansfield cases
90:English contract law
276:1765 in British law
136:Statute of Frauds
82:letters of credit
73:
72:
293:
271:1765 in case law
197:
194:
188:
179:
30:
18:
17:
301:
300:
296:
295:
294:
292:
291:
290:
246:
245:
222:War & Peace
205:
200:
195:
191:
180:
176:
172:
158:
146:Wilmot J said,
124:
108:
12:
11:
5:
299:
289:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
258:
244:
243:
228:
215:
204:
201:
199:
198:
189:
173:
171:
168:
167:
166:
163:Swift v. Tyson
157:
154:
123:
120:
107:
104:
94:Lord Mansfield
71:
70:
67:Lord Mansfield
63:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
43:Full case name
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
298:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
253:
251:
242:
238:
237:
232:
229:
227:
223:
219:
216:
213:
212:
207:
206:
193:
186:
185:
178:
174:
165:
164:
160:
159:
152:
147:
143:
139:
137:
131:
127:
119:
117:
113:
103:
101:
100:
99:Rann v Hughes
95:
91:
87:
86:consideration
83:
79:
78:
68:
64:
61:Case opinions
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
234:
221:
209:
192:
182:
177:
161:
149:
145:
140:
132:
129:
125:
109:
97:
76:
75:
74:
46:
38:King's Bench
15:
250:Categories
203:References
196:17 TR 350.
231:Pufendorf
116:insolvent
112:Rotterdam
156:See also
122:Judgment
53:Citation
218:Grotius
214:(2008)
187:(2008)
170:Notes
106:Facts
35:Court
252::
239:,
233:,
224:,
220:,
92:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
