🏅 UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Kingston v. Preston

99 Eng. Rep. 434 (1773)

tl;dr: Apprentice contracted with Defendant to work for a period of time, after which the apprentice could purchase the business. But after the apprenticeship, Plaintiff tried to purchase without having the money and Defendant refused to sell.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Plaintiff Kingston, an apprentice, contracted with Defendant Preston to work...

Holding:Payment is a necessary precondition for the exercise of Plaintiff’s...

Kingston v. Preston

Chat for Kingston v. Preston
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you