Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Re Casey’s Patents

[1892] 1 Ch 104

Case summary last updated at 02/01/2020 11:41 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Re Casey’s Patents

 Ps used D to promote their inventions and “in consideration of [his] services” they offered him 1/3 of the patents in a letter, effective immediately. Ps then tried to claim no contract either because (1) the consideration was future consideration (i.e. services in the future) or (2) was past consideration, which was defective. Bowen LJ, with others, ruled that D was to retain his share of the patents since (1) if it is future consideration then the consideration is the promise to render services, not the services themselves (which, Ps argued, were not completed) and (2) that from the evidence Bowen LJ could conclude that payment was really part of the initial deal, so that the question of past consideration is not really ruled on. He explicitly avoids ruling on whether past consideration is valid.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Contract Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Contract Law Notes

Contract Law Notes >>