Boothe v. Fitzpatrick
36 Vt. 681 (1864)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An express promise to pay for a past benefit is legally enforceable, even if the benefit was conferred without a prior request, so long as the promisor received a direct, material benefit from the promisee.
Facts:
- A bull owned by the defendant became an estray and was found by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff took possession of the bull and provided for its keeping and care.
- The plaintiff did not advertise the stray bull as required by statute.
- After the plaintiff had cared for the bull for some period, the defendant discovered its location.
- The defendant expressly promised the plaintiff that he would pay for the bull's keeping and take it away.
- The plaintiff continued to keep the bull after the defendant's promise was made.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in a trial court to recover the costs of keeping the defendant's bull.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to this appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subsequent express promise to pay for a past benefit, which was received by the promisor without an initial request, create a legally enforceable obligation?
Opinions:
Majority - Peck, J.
Yes. A subsequent express promise to pay for a past benefit creates a legally enforceable obligation where the promisor received a direct material benefit. The general rule is that a promise made upon a past consideration is not binding. However, an exception exists where the consideration moves directly from the plaintiff to the defendant and enures directly to the defendant’s benefit. In such cases, the law treats the subsequent promise as equivalent to a previous request, which remedies the lack of an initial agreement. Here, the defendant received the valuable pecuniary benefit of his bull being cared for at the plaintiff's expense. The defendant's later promise to pay for that keeping is therefore binding, both for the period before and after the promise was made. Furthermore, by making an express promise to pay, the defendant waived any defense he may have had under the estray statute regarding the plaintiff's failure to advertise.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the 'material benefit rule,' which serves as a significant exception to the traditional contract law principle that 'past consideration is no consideration.' The decision establishes that a subsequent promise to pay for a previously received benefit can form a valid contract, thereby preventing unjust enrichment. By equating a subsequent promise with a prior request, the court uses a legal fiction to enforce promises based on moral obligation when a tangible, pecuniary benefit has been conferred. This ruling influences future cases by allowing courts to enforce promises that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration, particularly where one party has clearly benefited at another's expense.
