Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 71

Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 71

List price: US$9.02

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1881 edition. Excerpt: ...consideration can never support an express promise. Hopkins et ax. v. Logan, 5 M. & VV. 241; Per Lord Denman, U. J. in Roscorla v. Thomas, 3 Q. B. 234; Per lllaule, J. in Elderlon v. Emmons, 4 C. B. 496. III. The plaintiifs seek to recover commissions here on an express promise, that is, a promise to pay for their services not a reasonable but a contract rate. Acts in the nature of estoppel can never raise an express promise but only such as the law will imply, and that, if anything, would be to pay not specific commissions, but a reasonable compensation for the plaintifls' time, and services. IV. The instruction that the guaranty was a valid guaranty of existing subscriptions was erroneous. If the contract at this time applied only to new subscriptions, the guaranty was not valid, because it applied only to the old. If the contract still applied to the old subscriptions, then the guaranty was void because not given till subscriptions lapsed or cancelled. Even if the guaranty applied to existing subscriptions, it is not valid because without consideration, and therefore not enforceable by the company. A guaranty like every other promise must have a consideration to support it. Ware v. Adams, 24 Maine, 177; Tenney v. Prince, 4 Pick. 385. And this consideration must move from the plaintiff. Leake Contracts, 221, 313; O'r0w v. Rogers, Strange, 592; Price v. Easton, 4 B. & Ad. 433; Smart v. Ulzell, 7 Dowl. 781; 2 Williams' Saunders, 137, (g.) The plaintiifs did not notify the defendants that they had given the guaranty. The rule as established by the cases is that where the defendant contracts to pay on doing of some act by the plaintiff, which when done, lies peculiarly or more properly in the knowledge of the plaintiff, ...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 220 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 399g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236749944
  • 9781236749949