Kingston v. Preston
Court of King’s Bench
Lofft 194, 2 Doug. 689, 99 Eng. Rep. 437 (1773)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Preston (defendant) was a silk merchant. Kingston (plaintiff) agreed to serve as Preston’s apprentice. At the end of that time, Preston was to sell the business to Kingston and a partner, who would continue to operate out of Preston’s home. Kingston promised to provide Preston with “sufficient security” and pay fair value for the business. Kingston sued for breach of contract, arguing that he was willing to perform his obligations under the contract but that Preston refused to sell the business. Preston argued that Kingston never provided the promised security. Kingston demurred. Kingston asserted that Preston was still obligated to transfer the business as agreed because the parties’ mutual promises were independent of one another. Consequently, Preston could not rely on Kingston’s breach to avoid his obligations under the contract. Kingston argued that his nonperformance merely provided a basis for Preston to bring a separate action against Kingston for breach. Conversely, Preston argued that the mutual promises made in their agreement were dependent on one another and that Kingston’s failure to perform relieved Preston of his obligation to perform.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mansfield, L.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
