Collins v Godefroy [1831]
Share
Collins v Godefroy [1831] EWHC KB J18 is a legal case that dealt with the principle that the performance of an existing duty does not constitute valid consideration in a contract. The case revolved around an agreement between the parties regarding the attendance of the plaintiff, Collins, in court.
Godefroy, the defendant, initiated legal proceedings against an attorney for negligence, which led to Collins being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness. To ensure Collins' attendance, Godefroy promised to compensate him with one guinea per day for the loss of his time. Collins attended court for six days but was not called to give evidence. After the completion of the agreed-upon period, Collins demanded payment of six guineas as per their arrangement.
The central question for the court was whether the agreement between Collins and Godefroy was supported by valuable consideration, considering Collins was already under a legal duty to attend court due to the subpoena.
The court held that the agreement lacked consideration. Lord Tenterden, in delivering the judgment, emphasised that if an individual is legally obligated, such as being regularly subpoenaed to attend court, promising remuneration for the performance of this duty is not valid consideration. The law does not permit the recovery of expenses incurred in the fulfilment of a duty mandated by law.
Lord Tenterden stated, "If it be a duty imposed by law upon a party regularly subpoenaed, to attend from time to time to give his evidence, then a promise to give him any remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration."
As a result, the court deemed the agreement unenforceable, establishing the principle that the performance of an existing duty does not constitute valid consideration in a contract. This decision reflects the broader legal doctrine that a promise to perform a pre-existing obligation is not sufficient consideration to support a contract.
Godefroy, the defendant, initiated legal proceedings against an attorney for negligence, which led to Collins being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness. To ensure Collins' attendance, Godefroy promised to compensate him with one guinea per day for the loss of his time. Collins attended court for six days but was not called to give evidence. After the completion of the agreed-upon period, Collins demanded payment of six guineas as per their arrangement.
The central question for the court was whether the agreement between Collins and Godefroy was supported by valuable consideration, considering Collins was already under a legal duty to attend court due to the subpoena.
The court held that the agreement lacked consideration. Lord Tenterden, in delivering the judgment, emphasised that if an individual is legally obligated, such as being regularly subpoenaed to attend court, promising remuneration for the performance of this duty is not valid consideration. The law does not permit the recovery of expenses incurred in the fulfilment of a duty mandated by law.
Lord Tenterden stated, "If it be a duty imposed by law upon a party regularly subpoenaed, to attend from time to time to give his evidence, then a promise to give him any remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a promise without consideration."
As a result, the court deemed the agreement unenforceable, establishing the principle that the performance of an existing duty does not constitute valid consideration in a contract. This decision reflects the broader legal doctrine that a promise to perform a pre-existing obligation is not sufficient consideration to support a contract.
