Jump to content

Peppercorn (law): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (TW)
Remove ref improve tag. Was added in Nov 2011 when article had 2 refs + a bare url. Now I've got it to 15 refs and at least one inline citation per paragraph.
(37 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Contract law}}
{{ref improve|date=November 2011}}
A '''peppercorn''' in legal parlance is a metaphor for a very small payment, a [[Consideration#Nominal_consideration|nominal consideration]], used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal [[contract]]. "A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn." Somervell LJ in ''Chappell v Nestlé'' [1960] AC 67. As an example of literal usage, a peppercorn has been used for almost 200 years as consideration for leasing a building in Bermuda.
In legal parlance, a '''peppercorn''' is a [[metaphor]] for a very small payment, a [[Consideration#Nominal consideration|nominal consideration]], used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal [[contract]]. It featured in ''[[Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd]]'' ([1960] AC 87), which stated that a "peppercorn does not cease to be good [[consideration]] if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn".<ref>{{ cite web|url= http://www.pbs.org/standarddeviantstv/transcript_business.html#pepper |title= Standard Deviants: All About Business Law| work =PBS |accessdate= March 19, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{ cite news |url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5262616.stm| title=How does a company cost £1?| work =BBC News Magazine|date = 21 August 2006}}</ref>


==Overview==
==Overview==
In [[English law]], and other countries with similar [[common law]] systems, a legal contract requires that both sides provide [[consideration]]. In other words, if an agreement does not specify that each party will give something of value to the other party, then it is not considered a binding contract, and cannot be enforced in court.<ref>{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qg83MNT4WB4C&pg=PA268&dq=consideration+english+law&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDlNXert7PAhVKtJQKHYp7C_EQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=consideration%20english%20law&f=false|pages = 267-269|chapter = Consideration|title = A Dictionary of American and English Law: With Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws : Also, Containing a Full Collection of Latin Maxims, and Citations of Upwards of Forty Thousand Reported Cases in which Words and Phrases Have Been Judicially Defined Or Construed|volume = 1|first1 = Stewart|last1 = Rapalje|first2 = Robert L.|last2 = Lawrence|publisher = [[The Lawbook Exchange]]|year = 1997|isbn = 9781886363335}}</ref> This requirement does not exist in contracts with [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems.
{{Contract law}}
In [[English law]], and other countries with similar [[common law]] systems, a legal contract requires that both sides provide [[consideration]]. In other words, if an agreement does not specify that each party will give something of value to the other party, then it is not considered a binding contract, and cannot be enforced in court. This requirement does not exist in contracts with [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems.

However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party.<ref>See eg ''Batsakis v. Demotsis'', 226 S.W.2d 673 ([[Texas Courts of Appeals|Court of Civil Appeals of Texas]], 1949).</ref> So, if a contract calls for one party to give up something of great value, while the other party gives up something of much lesser value, then it will generally still be considered a valid contract, even though the exchange of value greatly favors one side. Courts, however, will reject "consideration" that was not truly bargained for. For example in the [[United States|American]] case ''[[Fischer v. Union Trust Co.]]'',<ref>138 Mich. 612, 101 N.W. 852 (Supreme Court of Michigan, 1904).</ref> the [[Michigan]] court held that one dollar paid in exchange for the sale of real property did not constitute valuable consideration since the transaction was not bargained for. The dollar is considered nominal consideration, not because the dollar was too small an amount, but because it did not induce the seller to part with the property. Such promises that are motivated by love and affection are insufficient to constitute consideration.

So, in order for an essentially one-sided contract to still be valid and binding, the contract will generally be written so that one side gives up something of value, while the other side gives a token sum such as one pound, one dollar, or—literally—one peppercorn.

Peppercorn payments are sometimes used when a struggling company is sold. A failing company's [[net worth]] may actually be negative, since its liabilities may exceed its assets. So if some other party agrees to take over the company and assume its liabilities as well as its assets, the seller may actually agree to make a large payment to the buyer. But the buyer must still make some payment for the company&mdash;even if that payment is only one dollar or one pound&mdash;in order to establish that both sides have given consideration.


However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party.<ref>E.g., ''[[Batsakis v. Demotsis]]'', 226 S.W.2d 673 ([[Texas Courts of Appeals|Court of Civil Appeals of Texas]], 1949).</ref> So, if a contract calls for one party to give up something of great value, while the other party gives up something of much lesser value, then it will generally still be considered a valid contract, even though the exchange of value greatly favors one side. Courts, however, will reject "consideration" that was not truly bargained for. For example, in the 1904 case ''Fischer v. Union Trust Co.'', the [[Michigan Supreme Court]] held that the one dollar paid for the sale of real property did not constitute valuable consideration since the transaction had not been bargained for—a dollar was handed to a mentally [[Competence (law)|incompetent]] "buyer" who then dutifully handed it to the "seller".<ref>[http://www.lawnix.com/cases/fischer-union-trust.html ''Fischer v. Union Trust Co.''], 138 Mich. 612, 101 N.W. 852 (Supreme Court of Michigan, 1904).</ref> The dollar was not considered real consideration, not because the dollar was too small an amount, but because it did not induce the seller to part with the property. Such promises that are motivated by love and affection are insufficient to constitute consideration.<ref>{{cite journal| author1 =Edmund Polubinski, Jr. |title =The Peppercorn Theory and the Restatement of Contracts |journal= William & Mary Law Review|date=1968 | volume=10|issue=1 |pages=201–211| url= http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=wmlr }}</ref>
A peppercorn is also used in more balanced contracts, where one side wishes to conceal the nature of their payment. For example, since real estate contracts are generally matters of [[public record]], the purchaser of a house may not wish to list the exact amount of the payment on the contract. But there must be ''some'' specific payment listed in the contract, or the contract will be considered void for lack of consideration. So the contract may be written to reflect that the house is being sold in return for "ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration". The ten dollars is the "peppercorn" that provides concrete consideration and ensures that the contract is valid, while the actual amount paid for the house is hidden and referred to only as the "good and valuable consideration".


So, in order for an essentially one-sided contract to still be valid and binding, the contract will generally be written so that one side gives up something of value, while the other side gives a token sum—one pound, dollar, or literally one peppercorn. Peppercorn payments are sometimes used when selling a struggling company whose [[net worth]] may be negative. If some party agrees to take it over and assume its [[Liability (financial accounting)|liabilities]] as well as its [[assets]], the seller may actually agree to make a large payment to the buyer. But the buyer must still make some payment, however small, for the company in order to establish that both sides have given consideration.<ref>{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com.au/books?id=r-NiQsHzk4gC&pg=PA596&dq=peppercorn+payment+company+net+worth+negative&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX1_fnqd7PAhXKp5QKHepCBEkQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=peppercorn%20payment%20company%20net%20worth%20negative&f=false|pages = 591-616|title = International Asset Transfer: An Overview of the Main Jurisdictions : a Practitioner's Handbook|editor1-first = Gero F.|editor1-last = Pfeiffer|editor2-first = Sven|editor2-last = Timmerbeil|editor3-first = Frederik|editor3-last = Johannesdotter|editor4-first = Kay L.|editor4-last = Tidwell|publisher = [[Walter de Gruyter]]|year = 2010|isbn = 9783899494822|first = Marcel|last = Valenta|chapter = United States of America}}</ref>
Another common example of a peppercorn payment being used in legal contracts is the English practice of peppercorn rent, which refers to a nominal rental sum for property, land or buildings. Where a rental contract is put in place and the owner of the property wishes it to be rent-free it is normal to charge, say, one pound sterling as a peppercorn rent. Again, this is because, if the owner wants to lease the property, they must charge some rent so that [[Consideration in English law|consideration]] exists for both parties.


A peppercorn is also used in more balanced contracts, where one side wishes to conceal the nature of their payment. For example, since real estate contracts are generally matters of [[public record]], the purchaser of a house may not wish to list the exact amount of the payment on the contract. But there must be ''some'' specific payment listed in the contract, or the contract will be considered void for lack of consideration. So the contract may be written to reflect that the house is being sold in return for "ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration". The ten dollars is the "peppercorn" that provides concrete consideration and ensures that the contract is valid, while the actual amount paid for the house is hidden and referred to only as the "good and valuable consideration".<ref>{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0Ob1MwwJnOUC&pg=PA65&dq=ten+dollars+and+other+good+and+valuable+consideration&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjxYCBqd7PAhWIupQKHYV9CcsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=ten%20dollars%20and%20other%20good%20and%20valuable%20consideration&f=false|page = 65|title = Real Estate Closing Deskbook: A Lawyer's Reference Guide & State-by-state Summary|first = K. F.|last = Boackle|publisher = [[American Bar Association]]|year = 2003|isbn = 9781590312087}}</ref>
Furthermore, a peppercorn rent is often used as a form of nominal [[ground rent]] where a (potentially substantial) premium has also been paid on commencement of a long lease of, say, 99 or 125 years (a "virtual freehold"). The notional collection of the annual peppercorn rent helps to maintain a formal landlord and tenant relationship between the two parties, precluding the risk of a claim for [[adverse possession]] from the tenant arising, were no consideration to be paid for an extended period.


Another common example is the English practice of "peppercorn rent", the nominal rental sum for property, land or buildings. Where a rental contract is put in place and the owner of the property wishes it to be rent-free, it is normal to charge a small sum as "peppercorn rent", because if the owner wants to [[lease]] the property, he must charge some rent so that [[Consideration in English law|consideration]] exists for both parties. Furthermore, a peppercorn rent is often used as a form of nominal [[ground rent]] where a (potentially substantial) premium has also been paid on commencement of a long lease of, say, 99 or 125 years (a "virtual freehold").<ref>{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Z9PbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&dq=peppercorn+payment+virtual+freehold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzquCFrN7PAhUKE5QKHYUlAdYQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=peppercorn%20payment%20virtual%20freehold&f=false|pages = 171-190|title = Landlord and Tenant Law: Past, Present and Future|editor-first = Susan|editor-last = Bright|publisher = [[Bloomsbury Publishing]]|year = 2006|isbn = 9781847312785|chapter = Long Residential Leases: Future Directions|first = David|last = Clarke}}</ref> The notional collection of the annual peppercorn rent helps to maintain a formal [[Landlord–tenant law|landlord–tenant relationship]] between the two parties, precluding the risk of a claim for [[adverse possession]] from the tenant arising, were no consideration to be paid for an extended period.
==Literal use of a peppercorn==


It is not uncommon, even in the modern day, for a peppercorn rent to be denominated in (sometimes whimsical) physical goods rather than currency. For example, many of the buildings in London's Covent Garden are leased at a peppercorn rent of "one red apple and a posy of flowers",<ref>{{cite web |author=Molly Dover |url=http://www.propertyweek.com/capital-and-counties-jv-wins-covent-garden/3071263.article |title=Capital & Counties JV wins Covent Garden |publisher=Property Week |accessdate=5 August 2010 |date=28 July 2006}}</ref> and the [[National Coastwatch Institution|National Coastwatch]] station at St Albans Head occupies buildings owned by the Encombe Estate in exchange for "one crab per annum if demanded".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nci.org.uk/stations/coastguard-history-st-albans-head |title=Coastguard History at St Alban's Head |publisher=National Coastwatch Institution |accessdate=30 June 2016}}</ref>
The [[Freemasonry|Masonic Lodge]] of [[St._George's,_Bermuda|St. George's]] #200, in [[Bermuda]], rents the [[State_House,_Bermuda|Old State House]] as their lodge for the annual sum of a single peppercorn, presented to the island's [[Governor_of_Bermuda|governor]] on a velvet cushion atop a silver platter, in an annual ceremony performed since 1816 on or about April 23.


== Literal use ==
The Sevenoaks Vine Cricket Club in [[Sevenoaks]], [[England]], rent the [[Vine Cricket Ground]] from Sevenoaks Town Council at a yearly rent of 2 peppercorns which covers the ground and pavilion. The council in return, if requested, gives a new cricket ball to [[Baron Sackville]] every year.<ref>http://www.sevenoakstown.gov.uk/20100804TownCrierSummer.pdf</ref>
The [[Freemasonry|Masonic Lodge]] of [[St. George's, Bermuda|St. George's]], [[Bermuda]], rents the [[State House, Bermuda|Old State House]] as its lodge for the annual sum of a single peppercorn, presented to the [[Governor of Bermuda]] on a velvet cushion atop a silver platter, in an annual ceremony performed since 1816 on or about April 23.<ref>{{cite news | author1 = Ceola Wilson| title= Peppercorn ceremony draws Freemasons from US, UK and Canada| url = http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20130422/NEWS/704229912 | work = The Royal Gazette |date=April 22, 2013}}</ref>


The Sevenoaks Vine Cricket Club in [[Sevenoaks, England|Sevenoaks]], [[England]], rents the [[Vine Cricket Ground]] from Sevenoaks Town Council at a yearly rent of one peppercorn. It is many years since the club paid only one peppercorn for the rent of the pavilion. The council, in return, gives a new [[cricket ball]] to [[Baron Sackville]] every year if requested.<ref>{{cite news|title =Not to be Sneezed at - a peppercorn paid from Savills sponsored cricket club|url =http://www.savills.com/_news/article/3359/118835-0/7/2012/not-to-be-sneezed-at---a-peppercorn-paid-from-savills-sponsored-cricket-club| work=Savills| date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author1=René Gayle| title = When to execute as a deed| url =http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/mobile/business/When-to-execute-as-a-deed_15091623 |work =Jamaica Observer |date=September 19, 2013}}</ref>
==See also==
*[[Consideration#Nominal_consideration]]


The [[University of Bath]]'s main campus is on a 999-year lease from the then Bath City Council. Each year a peppercorn is presented by the Treasurer of the University to the Chairman of the [[Bath and North East Somerset]] Council as rent (but also to further the relationships between "[[town and gown]]").<ref>{{cite news |title=University hands over its peppercorn rent| url =http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2007/11/14/peppercorn.html |work=University of Bath Internal News|date=14 November 2007}}</ref>
==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}


== References ==
==Additional resources==
{{Reflist}}
*{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/standarddeviantstv/transcript_business.html#pepper|title=Standard Deviants: All About Business Law|publisher=PBS|accessdate=[[2006]]-[[08-24]]}}
*{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5262616.stm|title=How does a company cost £1?|publisher=BBC News Magazine|date=[[2006]]-[[08-21]]|accessdate=[[2006]]-[[08-24]]}}
*{{cite web|url=http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/hlsa/Maggs1.doc|title=Notes on Contracts I|author=Gregory E. Maggs|format=Microsoft Word document|publisher=The George Washington University Law School, Hispanic Law Student Organization|accessdate=[[2006]]-[[08-24]]}}
*{{cite web|url=http://www.law.washington.edu/mlsa/Outlines/Contracts%20Outline%20(Winter).doc|title=Notes on Contracts|publisher=Minority Law Students Association|format=Microsoft Word document|accessdate=[[2006]]-[[08-24]]}}


[[Category:Contract law]]
[[Category:Contract law]]

Revision as of 03:38, 16 October 2016

In legal parlance, a peppercorn is a metaphor for a very small payment, a nominal consideration, used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal contract. It featured in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd ([1960] AC 87), which stated that a "peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn".[1][2]

Overview

In English law, and other countries with similar common law systems, a legal contract requires that both sides provide consideration. In other words, if an agreement does not specify that each party will give something of value to the other party, then it is not considered a binding contract, and cannot be enforced in court.[3] This requirement does not exist in contracts with civil law systems.

However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party.[4] So, if a contract calls for one party to give up something of great value, while the other party gives up something of much lesser value, then it will generally still be considered a valid contract, even though the exchange of value greatly favors one side. Courts, however, will reject "consideration" that was not truly bargained for. For example, in the 1904 case Fischer v. Union Trust Co., the Michigan Supreme Court held that the one dollar paid for the sale of real property did not constitute valuable consideration since the transaction had not been bargained for—a dollar was handed to a mentally incompetent "buyer" who then dutifully handed it to the "seller".[5] The dollar was not considered real consideration, not because the dollar was too small an amount, but because it did not induce the seller to part with the property. Such promises that are motivated by love and affection are insufficient to constitute consideration.[6]

So, in order for an essentially one-sided contract to still be valid and binding, the contract will generally be written so that one side gives up something of value, while the other side gives a token sum—one pound, dollar, or literally one peppercorn. Peppercorn payments are sometimes used when selling a struggling company whose net worth may be negative. If some party agrees to take it over and assume its liabilities as well as its assets, the seller may actually agree to make a large payment to the buyer. But the buyer must still make some payment, however small, for the company in order to establish that both sides have given consideration.[7]

A peppercorn is also used in more balanced contracts, where one side wishes to conceal the nature of their payment. For example, since real estate contracts are generally matters of public record, the purchaser of a house may not wish to list the exact amount of the payment on the contract. But there must be some specific payment listed in the contract, or the contract will be considered void for lack of consideration. So the contract may be written to reflect that the house is being sold in return for "ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration". The ten dollars is the "peppercorn" that provides concrete consideration and ensures that the contract is valid, while the actual amount paid for the house is hidden and referred to only as the "good and valuable consideration".[8]

Another common example is the English practice of "peppercorn rent", the nominal rental sum for property, land or buildings. Where a rental contract is put in place and the owner of the property wishes it to be rent-free, it is normal to charge a small sum as "peppercorn rent", because if the owner wants to lease the property, he must charge some rent so that consideration exists for both parties. Furthermore, a peppercorn rent is often used as a form of nominal ground rent where a (potentially substantial) premium has also been paid on commencement of a long lease of, say, 99 or 125 years (a "virtual freehold").[9] The notional collection of the annual peppercorn rent helps to maintain a formal landlord–tenant relationship between the two parties, precluding the risk of a claim for adverse possession from the tenant arising, were no consideration to be paid for an extended period.

It is not uncommon, even in the modern day, for a peppercorn rent to be denominated in (sometimes whimsical) physical goods rather than currency. For example, many of the buildings in London's Covent Garden are leased at a peppercorn rent of "one red apple and a posy of flowers",[10] and the National Coastwatch station at St Albans Head occupies buildings owned by the Encombe Estate in exchange for "one crab per annum if demanded".[11]

Literal use

The Masonic Lodge of St. George's, Bermuda, rents the Old State House as its lodge for the annual sum of a single peppercorn, presented to the Governor of Bermuda on a velvet cushion atop a silver platter, in an annual ceremony performed since 1816 on or about April 23.[12]

The Sevenoaks Vine Cricket Club in Sevenoaks, England, rents the Vine Cricket Ground from Sevenoaks Town Council at a yearly rent of one peppercorn. It is many years since the club paid only one peppercorn for the rent of the pavilion. The council, in return, gives a new cricket ball to Baron Sackville every year if requested.[13][14]

The University of Bath's main campus is on a 999-year lease from the then Bath City Council. Each year a peppercorn is presented by the Treasurer of the University to the Chairman of the Bath and North East Somerset Council as rent (but also to further the relationships between "town and gown").[15]

References

  1. ^ "Standard Deviants: All About Business Law". PBS. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  2. ^ "How does a company cost £1?". BBC News Magazine. 21 August 2006.
  3. ^ Rapalje, Stewart; Lawrence, Robert L. (1997). "Consideration". A Dictionary of American and English Law: With Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws : Also, Containing a Full Collection of Latin Maxims, and Citations of Upwards of Forty Thousand Reported Cases in which Words and Phrases Have Been Judicially Defined Or Construed. Vol. 1. The Lawbook Exchange. pp. 267–269. ISBN 9781886363335.
  4. ^ E.g., Batsakis v. Demotsis, 226 S.W.2d 673 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1949).
  5. ^ Fischer v. Union Trust Co., 138 Mich. 612, 101 N.W. 852 (Supreme Court of Michigan, 1904).
  6. ^ Edmund Polubinski, Jr. (1968). "The Peppercorn Theory and the Restatement of Contracts". William & Mary Law Review. 10 (1): 201–211.
  7. ^ Valenta, Marcel (2010). "United States of America". In Pfeiffer, Gero F.; Timmerbeil, Sven; Johannesdotter, Frederik; Tidwell, Kay L. (eds.). International Asset Transfer: An Overview of the Main Jurisdictions : a Practitioner's Handbook. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 591–616. ISBN 9783899494822.
  8. ^ Boackle, K. F. (2003). Real Estate Closing Deskbook: A Lawyer's Reference Guide & State-by-state Summary. American Bar Association. p. 65. ISBN 9781590312087.
  9. ^ Clarke, David (2006). "Long Residential Leases: Future Directions". In Bright, Susan (ed.). Landlord and Tenant Law: Past, Present and Future. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 171–190. ISBN 9781847312785.
  10. ^ Molly Dover (28 July 2006). "Capital & Counties JV wins Covent Garden". Property Week. Retrieved 5 August 2010.
  11. ^ "Coastguard History at St Alban's Head". National Coastwatch Institution. Retrieved 30 June 2016.
  12. ^ Ceola Wilson (April 22, 2013). "Peppercorn ceremony draws Freemasons from US, UK and Canada". The Royal Gazette.
  13. ^ "Not to be Sneezed at - a peppercorn paid from Savills sponsored cricket club". Savills. July 31, 2012.
  14. ^ René Gayle (September 19, 2013). "When to execute as a deed". Jamaica Observer.
  15. ^ "University hands over its peppercorn rent". University of Bath Internal News. 14 November 2007.