The Austrian code of 1811 presumed a causa, requiring a promisor to prove there was none.
The oldest method of enforcement in Roman law was seizure of the person, to coerce satisfaction or hold the promisor in bondage until his kinsmen performed the judgment.
When form and intention concurred the promisor must answer for what he undertook.
Modern Continental law, apart from certain requirements of proof, resting on the same policy as our Statute of Frauds, asks only, Did the promisor intend to create a binding duty?
But exceptionally the obligation may be grave, as when the promisor intended to bind himself in virtue of justice and under grave sin, or when the secret is natural as well as promised.
If the promisorexplains beforehand to the promisee what he understands by the oath, he swears only in the sense thus set forth by him.
An oath should be interpreted strictly, for the presumption is that the promisor intended to place upon himself the least possible burden.
On the contrary, if the promise is part of an onerous contract, the promisor is bound in justice and the promisee obtains a strict right.
But if the promisoracts deceitfully, the oath is to be interpreted according to the intention of him who receives the promise (Canon 1321).
In practice one may follow the rule that a liberal promise or wager or other gratuitous contract obliges only from fidelity with no duty of restitution, unless it be certain that the promisor intended to bind himself in justice.
The promisor is unable to keep the promise, if the thing promised has become physically impossible (e.
There are other matters which qualify the obligation of a promisor to perform besides express conditions such as those we have alluded to.
There are two ways of making promises binding, and unless the promisor fulfils the requisites of one or the other of these two ways his promise will not be binding.
The transaction without delivery or deed is, in effect, a promise to give, and there being no consideration the promisor may subsequently refuse to keep his promise.
Now the first of those bargains is within the statute and must be in writing, but the second, although it seems for a much longer period, being for the whole life of the promisoror promisee, is not within the statute.
The person to whom the offer was made paid $1000 for the promise, therefore the promisoris bound to keep it.
But where the promisor stipulates in favour of a third person, having himself an interest in the performance of the promise, the stipulation is good.
Such a stipulation as this, though in its terms absolute, implies a condition that enough time shall be allowed to the promisor to enable him to pay the money at Carthage.
If a man stipulates for performance on the fulfilment of a condition, and dies before such fulfilment, his heir can sue on the contract when it occurs: and the heir of the promisor can be sued under the same circumstances.
The delivery need not have been made unless the owner chose, and having been made as the term of a bargain, the promisor cannot set up what might have happened to destroy the effect of what did happen.
The consequences are the same in kind whether the promise is that it shall rain, or that another man shall paint a picture, or that the promisor will deliver a bale of cotton.
But there can be a [317] contract before that moment, because the determination whether the promisor shall pay or not is no longer within his control.
The consequences of a binding promise at common law are not affected by the degree of power which the promisorpossesses over the promised event.
A promise in certain words has a definite meaning, which thepromisor is presumed to understand.
The promisor might say, It does not matter to me whether you knew that your representation was false or not; the only thing I am concerned with is its truth.
The only question from the purely legal point of view is whether the promisor will be compelled to pay.
If this only meant that the promisor alone must bear the legal burden which his promise may create, it would be true.
The only universal consequence of a legally binding promise is, that the law makes the promisor pay damages if the promised event does not come to pass.
One of the earliest [254] references to what a promisor was to have for his undertaking was in the action of assumpsit.
But if this were all, every clause in a contract which showed what the promisor did not promise would be a condition, and the word would be worse than useless.
Not literally compel even in that case, however, but put the promisor in prison unless he will convey.
The natural question is, what the promisorwas to have for his promise.
This something given by the promisee and accepted by the promisor in return for his undertaking is what we now call the consideration for the promise.
If, however, a creditor makes a contract based upon a valuable consideration, by which the principal debtor is granted an extension of time within which to pay his debt, the promisor is discharged.
By subrogation is meant the substitution of the promisor for the creditor in case the promisor to a suretyship obligation pays his principal's debt.
Is fraud practiced by the principal upon the promisor to a suretyship contract, a defense to the promisor in an action brought by the creditor?
If a creditor enters into a contract by which the principal is given an extension of time, the promisor is released.
Fraud practiced by the creditor upon the principal or upon the promisor is a defense to the promisor.
If the fraud is practiced by the principal upon the promisor, it is no defense to the promisor as against the creditor.
In the absence of special statute can a promisor to a suretyship contract compel by notice a creditor to sue a principal?
A few states provide by statute that a promisor may by notice compel a creditor to sue a principal upon a suretyship obligation when due, or be discharged for his failure so to do.
A promisor in suretyship may be either a surety, a guarantor or an indorser.
If a principal debtor pays or settles the debt which another promises to pay, the promisor is thereby discharged.
A promisor may be a surety, a guarantor, or an indorser of a negotiable instrument.
Whether a promisor is a surety, a guarantor, or an indorser depends upon the particular kind of a contract made.
Give the different technical names that may be applied to a promisor of a suretyship contract depending upon the nature of the liability.
The law implies a contract on the part of the principal to a suretyship contract to pay the promisor when the latter pays the suretyship obligation.
The above list will hopefully give you a few useful examples demonstrating the appropriate usage of "promisor" in a variety of sentences. We hope that you will now be able to make sentences using this word.
