Assumpsit is a Latin term used in legal pleadings to recover damages from a breach of contract. Originally, common law did not enforce private contracts, but equity courts recognized the assumption as a mechanism to enforce them. An express assumption is a clear promise, while an implied assumption is based on the conduct of the parties. Courts examine the circumstances to determine if there was an implied contract and issue a ruling accordingly.
Assumpsit is a Latin phrase meaning “undertook” or “promised”. From a legal point of view, assumpsit is an ancient term that a person would use in pleadings to recover damages from a breach of contract. A plaintiff would claim that there was an assumption – a promise – that a defendant did not keep. Failure by the defendant to fulfill the promise would therefore constitute a violation which would entitle the plaintiff to compensation for damages from the defendant. Historically, filing a presumption claim was the only way a party could recover damages for a breach of contract, because no other legal remedies were available.
Legislative bodies in ancient times did not exist to pass laws to enforce contracts between private citizens. Courts had to rely on the common law to make decisions. This law was developed through court rulings, which were based on the customs of the people of the time. Originally, under common law, private contracts were not enforceable between individuals. Even if it were clear that two parties have entered into an agreement and that one party has violated that agreement, a common law court would not provide a remedy.
Equity courts eventually recognized the assumption as a mechanism that would allow them to enforce private agreements. Equity courts base their decisions on principles of fairness or equity. A court of equity was known as a Chancery Court in England and the early American colonies. England abolished the courts of equity when it enacted the Judicature Acts, establishing the current English judicial system. The United States abolished equity courts when it adopted federal rules of civil procedure.
Over time, the assumption has become a cause of action that would have allowed compensation for the damage. If an agreement was express – a promise made explicitly and clearly in oral or written language – then the recovery request was an express assumption. For example, if a painter promised to paint a house in exchange for a horse and the owner of the house agreed, that would be an explicit agreement. If the homeowner has not delivered the horse after the paint job is complete, the painter would have a cause of action in an explicit supposition against the homeowner.
A general prerequisite was an action for damages for implied contracts. Individuals would form an implicit contract based on their actions. Courts would examine the conduct of the parties to understand the intention of the parties. Depending on the circumstances, a court might conclude that there was an implied contract between the parties. The court could then issue an appropriate ruling to ensure that fairness prevails.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
