## Facts

- John Slade sold wheat and rye to Humphrey Morley for an agreed price of £16.
- Morley allegedly failed to pay the £16 (or disputed nonpayment), prompting Slade to sue for the price.
- Slade brought an action on the case in assumpsit rather than the traditional action of debt.
- The dispute raised whether the original bargain itself supplied a promise to pay or whether an additional express promise was required.

## Issues

1. Whether assumpsit may be used to recover a fixed sum owed from a bargain when an action of debt would also lie on the same transaction.
2. Whether a promise to pay can be implied from quid pro quo in the bargain, without proof of a separate express undertaking.
3. Whether allowing assumpsit in such cases improperly circumvents procedural incidents of debt actions, including wager of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Exchequer Chamber held that assumpsit could be maintained to recover the £16 arising from the bargain, even though debt was also available.
- The court recognized an implied promise to pay arising from the existence of a bargained exchange supported by consideration (quid pro quo).
- The court rejected the view that assumpsit required an express promise independent of the bargain.
- The judgment validated proceeding in indebitatus assumpsit for the whole debt, limiting the risk of multiple actions on the same obligation.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may sue in assumpsit to recover a debt-like monetary obligation arising from a bargain, notwithstanding that an action of debt also lies.
- Where there is quid pro quo, the law implies a promise to pay; failure to pay is actionable as nonperformance of that implied undertaking.
- Assumpsit provides a jury-triable alternative to debt and avoids procedural devices associated with debt, including wager of law.
- When assumpsit is used for such obligations, it should be brought for the entire debt to prevent duplicative litigation on the same contract.

## Conclusion

The court approved assumpsit as a proper remedy to enforce payment obligations arising from bargained exchanges, treating the bargain itself as implying a promise to pay and permitting plaintiffs to choose assumpsit even where debt could also be brought.


Slade v. Morley, 76 Eng. Rep. 1074 (Exch. Ch. 1602)