217:
distribution of his father's property, and did complain to his father because he had not an equal share, and said to him, I will cease to complain if you will not sue upon this note. Whereupon the father said, If you will promise me not to complain, I will give up the note. If such a plea as this could be supported, the following would be a binding promise: A man might complain that another person used the public highway more than he ought to do, and that other might say, do not complain, and I will give you five pounds. It is ridiculous to suppose that such promises could be binding. So, if the holder of a bill of exchange were suing the acceptor, and the acceptor were to complain that the holder had treated him hardly, or that the bill ought never to have been circulated, and the holder were to say, now, if you will not make any more complaints, I will not sue you, such a promise would be like that now set up. In reality, there was no consideration whatever. The son had no right to complain, for the father might make what distribution of his property he liked; and the son's abstaining from doing what he had no right to do can be no consideration.
138:
24:
216:
The plea is clearly bad. By the argument, a principle is pressed to an absurdity, as a bubble is blown until it bursts. Looking at the words merely, there is some foundation for the argument, and following the words only, the conclusion may be arrived at. It is said, the son had a right to an equal
196:
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. In his defense, the son argued that his father had said the son need not repay if the son would stop complaining about how Mr Bluett would distribute his
212:
held there was no consideration for any discharge of the obligation to repay. The son had ‘no right to complain’ anyway. Not complaining was therefore an entirely intangible benefit.
228:
There is a consideration on one side, and it is said the consideration on the other is the agreement itself; if that were so, there could never be a
314:
299:
304:
96:
68:
75:
115:
53:
261:
45:
82:
49:
309:
185:
64:
289:
294:
34:
38:
268:
89:
181:
8:
137:
253:
221:
283:
230:
209:
198:
245:
23:
281:
156:(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36; 24 Eng Law & Eq 434
52:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
136:
116:Learn how and when to remove this message
282:
50:adding citations to reliable sources
17:
13:
14:
326:
315:Court of Exchequer Chamber cases
22:
300:English enforceability case law
262:Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd
305:English consideration case law
184:case, concerning the scope of
1:
275:
186:consideration in English law
7:
238:
204:
10:
331:
180:(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 is an
165:
160:
152:
144:
135:
130:
191:
269:Williams v Roffey Bros
236:
219:
169:Pollock CB, Alderson B
226:
214:
201:among the children.
182:English contract law
46:improve this article
310:1853 in British law
249:(1600) Cro Eliz 756
173:
172:
148:Exchequer Chamber
126:
125:
118:
100:
322:
290:1853 in case law
257:(1891) 27 NE 256
197:property in his
161:Court membership
140:
128:
127:
121:
114:
110:
107:
101:
99:
65:"White v Bluett"
58:
26:
18:
330:
329:
325:
324:
323:
321:
320:
319:
295:1853 in England
280:
279:
278:
241:
207:
194:
122:
111:
105:
102:
59:
57:
43:
27:
12:
11:
5:
328:
318:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
292:
277:
274:
273:
272:
265:
258:
254:Hamer v Sidway
250:
240:
237:
222:Baron Alderson
206:
203:
193:
190:
177:White v Bluett
171:
170:
167:
166:Judges sitting
163:
162:
158:
157:
154:
150:
149:
146:
142:
141:
133:
132:
131:White v Bluett
124:
123:
30:
28:
21:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
327:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
287:
285:
271:
270:
266:
264:
263:
259:
256:
255:
251:
248:
247:
243:
242:
235:
233:
232:
225:
223:
218:
213:
211:
202:
200:
189:
187:
183:
179:
178:
168:
164:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
129:
120:
117:
109:
98:
95:
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67: –
66:
62:
61:Find sources:
55:
51:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
267:
260:
252:
244:
231:nudum pactum
229:
227:
224:added this.
220:
215:
208:
195:
176:
175:
174:
112:
106:January 2022
103:
93:
86:
79:
72:
60:
44:Please help
32:
15:
284:Categories
276:References
210:Pollock CB
76:newspapers
246:Bret v JS
33:does not
239:See also
205:Judgment
153:Citation
90:scholar
54:removed
39:sources
92:
85:
78:
71:
63:
192:Facts
145:Court
97:JSTOR
83:books
199:will
69:news
37:any
35:cite
48:by
286::
188:.
234:.
119:)
113:(
108:)
104:(
94:·
87:·
80:·
73:·
56:.
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
