6 Ellis & Blackburn 370 (1856)
Campbell (defendant) agreed to purchase a portion of the benefits that were to accrue from John Pym’s (plaintiff) invention. The two agreed on the terms in writing and both signed the document. Campbell set up a meeting with two engineers to get the engineers’ approval of the invention. One of the engineers did not approve of the invention. Following the engineer’s disapproval, Campbell refused to pay Pym. Pym sued for breach of the agreement. At trial, Campbell was allowed to produce evidence that the agreement was conditioned on the engineer’s approval of the invention. The judge found for Campbell. Pym obtained a rule nisi for a new trial.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, C.J.)
Concurrence (Erle, J.)
Concurrence (Crompton, J.)
Dissent (Serjt, J. and Hodgson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.