Paradine v. Jane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paradine v. Jane
King’s Bench
Date decided:	1647
Full case name:	Paradine v. Jane
Citations:	Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis., Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 1178, & 1179, Aleyn 26, 82 Eng. Rep. 897
Judges sitting:	---
Cases cited:	---
Legislation cited:	---
Case history
Prior actions:	---
Subsequent actions:	---
Keywords
---

Paradine v. Jane, Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis., Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 1178, & 1179, Aleyn 26, 82 Eng. Rep. 897 (1647), is a case which established absolute liability for contractual debts.

1 Background
2 Decision
3 Criticism
4 External links
5 Resources

[edit] Background

This action grew out of the English Civil War. Prince Rupert was commander of the armies of his uncle, King Charles I. Forces on both sides often looted the estates of the nobles for the purpose of gaining supplies. On July 19, 1642, the Royalist forces, known as the Cavaliers, took possession of land owned by the plaintiff, Paradine, which was under lease to the defendant, Jane. The Royalists held the land for three years, finally relinquishing it in 1646 after the remaining Royalist resistance collapsed.

[edit] Decision

Paradine sued Jane for three years back rent, and Jane defended himself by asserting that he was not in possession of the land for the time in question. The justices stated that even though in previous cases they would not allow a lessor to proceed against a lessee in time of war, Jane was still liable for the rent. The court held that the parties had committed themselves to the lease, and if they had wanted to provide for the avoidance of liability in certain situations, they could have done so in the terms of the contract itself. Furthermore, the court reasoned, if the lessee was to have the advantage of profiting from the use of the land, he should bear the losses which may occur from the use of the land as well.

[edit] Criticism

In his book The Death of Contract, American law professor Grant Gilmore suggests that both English and American judges broadened the principle set forth in Paradine v. Jane unnecessarily. He argues that no legal system consistently held parties absolutely liable for the contracts they made, and that the holding of Paradine itself is limited to its own circumstances, meaning that either the defendant could not counterclaim his own plea against the landlord’s action for rent, or that the court considered the leasehold to be a fully executed transaction.