Lexplug logoLexplug

Goulet v. Goulet

Supreme Court of New Hampshire
105 N.H. 51, 1963 N.H. LEXIS 14, 192 A.2d 626 (1963)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Maine law, a seal on a written instrument, such as a covenant not to sue, implies consideration, and the absence of actual consideration cannot be raised as a defense to the instrument's enforceability. The validity of such an instrument is governed by the law of the state where it was executed by parties domiciled therein, absent a clear intent to the contrary.


Facts:

  • Marie L. Goulet and William Goulet were a married couple domiciled in Maine.
  • On March 21, 1954, Marie Goulet sustained injuries in an accident that occurred in Raymond, New Hampshire.
  • On April 2, 1954, while in Maine, Marie Goulet signed a document titled a covenant not to sue her husband, William Goulet, for the injuries from the accident.
  • The written covenant was executed under seal.
  • The document recited consideration of $1.00, but no actual consideration was given for the promise not to sue.

Procedural Posture:

  • Marie L. Goulet filed a lawsuit against her husband, William Goulet, in a New Hampshire trial court to recover for injuries sustained in an accident.
  • William Goulet raised the covenant not to sue as a defense to bar the action.
  • The trial court found as a fact that no consideration was given for the covenant and, on that basis, rejected the defense.
  • William Goulet (appellant) appealed the trial court's adverse ruling to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Locked

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 covenant not to sue, executed under seal in Maine by a Maine domiciliary, bar that domiciliary from bringing a subsequent personal injury lawsuit in New Hampshire, even if no actual consideration was given for the covenant?


Opinions:

Majority - Blandin, J.

Yes, the covenant not to sue bars the lawsuit. The validity and effect of the covenant are governed by the law of the place where it was executed by parties domiciled there, which in this case is Maine. Under the established law of Maine, an instrument executed under seal implies consideration. Consequently, the want of actual consideration cannot be asserted as a defense to void the covenant. Because the sealed instrument is valid and enforceable under Maine law, it effectively bars the plaintiff's suit against the defendant.



Analysis:

This decision illustrates the enduring significance of the common law doctrine of the seal in jurisdictions that have not abolished its legal effect. It reinforces the principle that a seal can serve as a substitute for consideration, making a promise legally binding even without a bargained-for exchange. The case also provides a straightforward application of the conflict of laws principle of lex loci contractus (law of the place of the contract), holding that the law of the state where the agreement was made and where the parties lived governs its validity, rather than the law of the state where the underlying tort occurred.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Goulet v. Goulet (1963) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Goulet v. Goulet