Paradine v. Jane Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Paradine v. Jane | 82 Eng. Rep. 897 (1647)
It’s a historical truth that war is often particularly cruel to innocent people trapped between opposing armies. They often lose their homes, their lands, their property, and any provisions they’ve created and set aside by the sweat of their own labor. They’re also often injured, killed, or carried away by the invading army.
On top of such casual cruelty, civilians caught up in their landlord’s war, or their overlord’s war, are often expected to produce crops or wealth, no matter how much war has frustrated their purpose. The King’s Bench made that point in the 1647 case of Paradine versus Jane.
Paradine leased land to Jane for a period of years. But the English Civil War intervened. Troops loyal to King Charles the First, led by Prince Rupert of the Rhine, seized Jane’s leasehold and expelled him. Rupert’s forces held the land for three years. Jane wasn’t able to work the land or earn any profits, and he didn’t pay rent for those three years.
Paradine then sued Jane for three years of back rent. Jane responded that, due to his forced expulsion from the leasehold, he wasn’t able to generate any profit from the land, and therefore didn’t owe Paradine any rent.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@kenmccready2870]

The outcome of the case was that the court ruled that the tenant should have for sought and guarded against this contingency by the terms within their lease .and had to pay the rents the court refused to accept the discharge of frustration is that the basics of this case ? loved to hear as the video ended stating that the defendant didn't owe any rent ...??

[@atkippes]

The court held that the tenant was obliged to pay the full rent, and would have had to do so even if the whole place had burned down or been swallowed by the sea. Under common law, contracts were strict liability undertakings, meaning that if a party to a contract failed to perform the contract for ANY reason, that party was liable for breach of contract.

[@Movingacharya]

Absurd ending. You didn’t tell the ratio of the case. Are you people kidding us?