Nichols v. Raynbred
Dependency of mutual promises--Nichols v. Raynbred,
88 (K.B. 1615).
Nichols (P) agreed to
deliver a cow to Raynbred (D) for 50 shillings. P did not aver the
delivery of the cow, but sought instead to recover the 50
shillings. The trial court ruled that, because a promise was given
for a promise, P did not need to plead that he had, in fact,
delivered the cow.
the court imply a constructive condition that a party must perform
its part of the agreement before recovering on the other party's
Judgment affirmed. A
party who accepts a promise for a promise may recover without
pleading his own performance.
Comment. This case
illustrates the old common law doctrine of "dependency of mutual
promises." Today, courts would imply a constructive condition
that P must perform his promise before seeking recovery on D's
doctrine of constructive (implied-in-Iaw) conditions sterns from
the landmark case of
(below), in which Lord Mansfield
denounced the hardships imposed by construing the parties'
promises in that case to be independent and brought forth the
doctrine of constructive conditions to correct the situation.
All participants in the study group must always follow
the BSL Honor Code.