Nichols v. Raynbred

Brief Fact Summary.

Nichols (Plaintiff) brought an assumpsit against Raynbread (Defendant) declaring that Plaintiff promised to deliver a cow to Defendant, and Defendant promised to deliver 50 shillings to Plaintiff. 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The promises must be at one instant, for else they will be nuda pacta.

Facts.

Plaintiff brought an assumpsit against Defendant declaring that Plaintiff promised to deliver a cow to Defendant, and Defendant promised to deliver 50 shillings to Plaintiff: adjudged for the Plaintiff in both courts. 

Issue.

Were the promises enforceable?

Held.

The Plaintiff need not aver the delivery of the cow, because it is a promise for a promise.

Dissent.

None.

Concurrence.

None.

Discussion.

This case illustrates early attitudes toward what is now described as “the dependency of mutual promises.”