{"id":3940,"date":"2017-08-05T18:14:43","date_gmt":"2017-08-05T18:14:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=3940"},"modified":"2017-09-12T07:29:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T07:29:03","slug":"special-assumpsit","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=3940","title":{"rendered":"Special Assumpsit &#8211; Breach of Contract"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>Definition of <span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\">Special Assumpsit<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u201c<\/strong>(17c.)<strong> An action based on the defendant&#8217;s breach of an express contract. <\/strong>\u2014 Also termed <em>express assumpsit<\/em>.<strong>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"JUSTIFY\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Special assumpsit lies for the recovery of damages for the breach of simple contract, either express or implied in fact. The term &#8216;special contract&#8217; is often used to denote an express or explicit contract at contrasted with a promise implied in law.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p align=\"RIGHT\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading \u00a7 58, at 148 (Henry Winthrop Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"JUSTIFY\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">From the allegations concerning the &#8216;assumpsit&#8217;, a new action which split off from the action on the case came to be known as the action of assumpsit. Since, however, the plaintiff had to allege &amp; prove a specific or special promise, in order to get a judgment, the action came to be known as the action of &#8216;special assumpsit&#8217;. When the special promise came to be regarded as the bases of the action, the action came to be regarded as a contract action, rather than one based on unclassified &#8216;wrongs&#8217;.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p align=\"RIGHT\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>Charles Herman Kinnane, A First book on Anglo-American Law 633-34 (2nd ed. 1952)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>Definition of <span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\">ASSUMPSIT<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u201c<\/strong>[Law Latin &#8216;he undertook&#8217;] (16c.)<strong> 1. An express or implied promise, not under seal, by which one person undertakes to do some act or pay something to another<\/strong> &lt;an assumpsit to pay a debt&gt;<strong>. \u00a02. A common-law action for breach of such a promise or for breach of contract<\/strong> &lt;the creditor&#8217;s assumpsit against the debtor&gt;<strong>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"JUSTIFY\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">It was early known as &#8216;trespass on the case upon promises&#8217;, but in time came to be designated assumpsit he assumed or promised), &amp; lies for damages for breach of all contracts, parol or simple, whether written or verbal, express or implied.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p align=\"RIGHT\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>Edwin E. Bryant, the Law of Pleading Under the Codes of Civil Procedure 9-10 (2d ed. 1899)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>\u201c<span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\">ASSUMPSIT<\/span>\u201d continued:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"JUSTIFY\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">In its origin an action of tort, \u201d[assumpsit] was soon transformed into an action of contract, becoming afterwards a remedy where there was neither tort nor contract. Based at first only upon an express promise, it was afterwards supported upon an implied promise, &amp; even upon a fictitious promise. Introduced as a special manifestation of the action on the case, it soon acquired the dignity of a distinct form of action, which superseded Debt, became concurrent with Account, with Case upon a bailment (page 65), a warranty, &amp; the essentially equitable quasi-contracts growing out of the principle of unjust enrichment (page 44). Surely, it would be hard to find a better illustration of the flexibility &amp; power of self-development of the Common Law.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"RIGHT\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>&#8211; James Barr Ames, \u201cThe History of Assumpsit\u201d in 3 Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History 298 (1909)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Definition of Special Assumpsit: \u201c(17c.) An action based on the defendant&#8217;s breach of an express contract. \u2014 Also termed express assumpsit.\u201d \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201cSpecial assumpsit lies for the recovery of damages for the breach of simple contract, either express or implied in fact. The term &#8216;special contract&#8217; is often used to denote an express or &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=3940\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Special Assumpsit &#8211; Breach of Contract<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":5696,"menu_order":10,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-3940","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3940","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3940"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5700,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3940\/revisions\/5700"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}