{"id":8941,"date":"2013-04-02T13:21:32","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legaldictionary.lawin.org?p=8941"},"modified":"2013-04-02T13:21:32","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:32","slug":"cutter-v-powell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlegal.eu\/cutter-v-powell\/","title":{"rendered":"Cutter V. Powell"},"content":{"rendered":"
((1795), 6 T. K. 320). No claim on a quantum rneruit can succeed if it is inconsistent with the terms of an express contract. The defendant gave to Cutter a note as follows : “Ten days after the ship Governor Parry, myself master, arrives at Liverpool I promise to pay to Mr. T. Cutter the sum of thirty guineas, provided he proceeds, continues, and does his duty as second mate in the said ship from hence to the port of Liverpool. Kingston, July 31, 1793.”
Cutter died during the voyage, and this action was brought by his representatives. Held, that deceased not having proceeded, continued and done his duty for the whole voyage, nothing could be recovered by his representatives<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n