Hamer v Sidway Case PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Klass Contracts Case Brief...

Description

Louisa Hamer v. Franklin Sidway Court of Appeals of New York, 1891

Summary: Mr. Story, at this large party, promised his nephew that if he refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cars or billiards for money until he was 21, he would pay him $5,000. The nephew agreed and abided by these conditions, and on his 21st birthday wrote his uncle to say, “Hey, I’ve followed the agreement. I’m entitled to that $5,000 now.” His uncle returned his letter affirming that he was indeed entitled to the money, but advised him to use it wisely, and offered to hold on to the money and let it gather interest which would go to the nephew. The nephew again, agreed, but then Mr. Story died. The defendant, acting on behalf of Mr. Story’s estate, claimed that the nephew was not entitled to the money (the $5,000) because there was no consideration, claiming that “unless the promisor was benefitted, the contract was without consideration.” Procedural History: Question/Outcome/Rationale: Do you have consideration is the promisor receives no clear benefit? YES! “Courts ‘will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promise or a third party, or is of any substantial value to any one. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him” [PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL] “it is sufficient that he restricted his lawful freedom of action within certain prescribed limits upon the father of his uncle’s agreement, and now, having performed fully the conditions imposed, it is of no moment whether such performance actually proved a benefit to the promisor…..”

Key takeaway/discussion: 1. A benefit/detriment are not necessary to find consideration.

What distinguishes this case from Kirksey? In Kirksey there was no price to him giving her the land (see tramp example, page 82.). Rather, the promise was deemed as gratuitous. In Hamer, there was a clear price (no drinking, gambling, etc.) for the $5,000. The condition is the price in Hamer, where it was not truly the price in Kirksey, but rather, was simply what had to be conducted for the gratuitous promise to be actualized....