Kingston v. Preston: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|issues=Does 1 party's breach of contract excuse the other party from satisfying the contract's obligations? | |issues=Does 1 party's breach of contract excuse the other party from satisfying the contract's obligations? | ||
|arguments=Preston argued that Kingston didn't provide the required security for the sale of the business. | |arguments=Preston argued that Kingston didn't provide the required security for the sale of the business. | ||
|holding=Yes. A party's breach excuses the other party's performance if the non-breaching party's obligations were dependent on the breaching party's obligations. | |holding=Yes. A party's breach excuses the other party's performance if the non-breaching party's obligations were [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/condition-precedent dependent on the breaching party's obligations]. | ||
|rule=* https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/mutuality-of-obligation | |rule=*[https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/mutuality-of-obligation Mutuality of Obligation] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kingston-v-preston | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kingston-v-preston | ||
Latest revision as of 14:47, November 17, 2023
| Kingston v. Preston | |
| Court | Court of King’s Bench |
|---|---|
| Citation | Lofft 194, 198 98 Eng. Rep. 606, 608 (1773) |
| Date decided | 1773 |
Facts
Plaintiff (Kingston) contracted with the defendant (Preston) to serve him for 1 and ¼ years in his trade as a silk-mercer for £200 / year.
Then at the end of the year, the defendant would give up his business to the plaintiff, along with a helper, for a fair value.
*Preston = silk merchant = mercer = defendant
*Kingston = apprentice of Preston = plaintiff
*The first part of the contract was completed = Kingston completed his apprenticeship, but
*the second part was not = Preston didn't sell his mercership to Preston!Procedural History
Issues
Arguments
Holding
Rule
Resources
Issues
Whether a party is liable for a breach of contract when a condition precedent exists in the terms which has not yet been performed, but an independent part of the contract has already been completed by both parties.
Holding/Decision
Judgment for the defendant.
Reasoning
The part to be performed by the defendant was a condition precedent to good security for the payment by the plaintiff, which was not fulfilled.
