Bradbury v Morgan [1862]
Share
Bradbury v Morgan [1862] 158 ER 877 revolved around the nature of the agreement between the parties and the implications of the death of one of the parties on the contractual obligations.
Leigh had requested Bradbury to extend credit to his brother up to the amount of £100, and Leigh guaranteed the account of his brother to secure this arrangement. Bradbury, relying on this guarantee, extended credit to Leigh's brother and continued supplying goods to Leigh in their usual business manner. Unexpectedly, Leigh passed away, but Bradbury remained unaware of his death. Subsequently, Bradbury continued providing goods on credit as per the earlier agreement. Morgan, acting as an executor on behalf of Leigh, declined to pay for the goods, contending that the debts were incurred after Leigh's death and, therefore, Leigh was not liable.
The central issue before the court was twofold. Firstly, the court needed to determine whether the arrangement between the parties constituted a contract or a mere request that could be terminated upon Leigh's death. If the court deemed it a contract, the next consideration was whether Morgan, as Leigh's executor, remained liable for the goods received after Leigh's demise.
The court ruled in favour of Bradbury. It held that if the agreement was construed as an implied contract emerging from a request, then such a contract would cease upon the death of a party. However, crucially, the court noted that there was no notice provided regarding Leigh's death, and as a result, there was no attempt to terminate the contract. In the absence of explicit notification of Leigh's death, the court found that the contractual obligations endured, and Morgan, as the executor, was still liable to fulfil the payment for the goods supplied after Leigh's passing.
This case underscores the importance of proper communication and notice in contractual relationships, especially when unforeseen events, such as the death of a party, may have potential implications on the continuation of contractual obligations.
Leigh had requested Bradbury to extend credit to his brother up to the amount of £100, and Leigh guaranteed the account of his brother to secure this arrangement. Bradbury, relying on this guarantee, extended credit to Leigh's brother and continued supplying goods to Leigh in their usual business manner. Unexpectedly, Leigh passed away, but Bradbury remained unaware of his death. Subsequently, Bradbury continued providing goods on credit as per the earlier agreement. Morgan, acting as an executor on behalf of Leigh, declined to pay for the goods, contending that the debts were incurred after Leigh's death and, therefore, Leigh was not liable.
The central issue before the court was twofold. Firstly, the court needed to determine whether the arrangement between the parties constituted a contract or a mere request that could be terminated upon Leigh's death. If the court deemed it a contract, the next consideration was whether Morgan, as Leigh's executor, remained liable for the goods received after Leigh's demise.
The court ruled in favour of Bradbury. It held that if the agreement was construed as an implied contract emerging from a request, then such a contract would cease upon the death of a party. However, crucially, the court noted that there was no notice provided regarding Leigh's death, and as a result, there was no attempt to terminate the contract. In the absence of explicit notification of Leigh's death, the court found that the contractual obligations endured, and Morgan, as the executor, was still liable to fulfil the payment for the goods supplied after Leigh's passing.
This case underscores the importance of proper communication and notice in contractual relationships, especially when unforeseen events, such as the death of a party, may have potential implications on the continuation of contractual obligations.
