## Facts

- The defendant, Braithwait, committed a serious crime by killing another individual.
- Braithwait requested that the plaintiff, Lampleigh, use his best efforts to secure a pardon from the King.
- Lampleigh, acting upon Braithwait’s request, incurred significant personal effort and expenses in traveling to obtain the pardon.
- After Lampleigh successfully obtained and delivered the pardon, Braithwait promised to pay him £100 for his efforts.
- Braithwait later refused to pay, leading Lampleigh to initiate legal action to enforce the promise.
- The principal issue was whether Lampleigh’s actions, performed before Braithwait’s promise, could serve as valid consideration for the promise.

## Issues

1. Whether an act performed prior to a promise, but at the promisor’s request, could amount to valid consideration for the subsequent promise.
2. Whether the court could infer an implied promise of payment from the initial request.
3. Whether the subsequent express promise to pay was merely the quantification of an existing implied obligation.

## Decision

- The court held that where an act is performed at the promisor’s request and with an implied understanding of remuneration, the subsequent promise to pay can be linked to the original request.
- The act by Lampleigh was not considered past consideration, as Braithwait’s request implied a promise of remuneration.
- The promise to pay £100 was enforceable, as it fixed the amount due for services rendered upon request.
- The judgment distinguished cases where actions were voluntary or lacking an implied understanding of remuneration.

## Legal Principles

- The general rule in contract law is that past consideration is not valid consideration to support a promise.
- An exception exists where the act was done at the promisor’s request with an understanding of payment; here, the consideration and promise are connected.
- The subsequent promise is seen as confirming the implied obligation from the original request, not as creating a new contract.
- Later cases, including Re Casey’s Patents (1892) and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980), affirmed and clarified these requirements: (1) the act must be at the promisor’s request, (2) there must be an understanding of remuneration, and (3) the later promise must merely fix the amount or terms of payment.

## Conclusion

Lampleigh v Braithwait established that an act performed at the promisor's request with an implied understanding of remuneration can constitute valid consideration for a subsequent promise, forming a recognized exception to the rule against past consideration and shaping future contract law doctrine on enforceability of such promises.


Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105