Editing Hamer v. Sidway

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Court of Appeals of New York
|citation=124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891)
|date=April 14, 1891
|subject=Contracts
|facts=Plaintiff (William Story II), at the age of about 15, received a promise from his uncle (testator William Story) for $5,000 if he abstained from alcohol, tobacco, swearing, and playing billiards and cards for money until his 21st birthday. 

Upon Plaintiff's 21st Birthday, Plaintiff wrote uncle to tell him he performed his part of the agreement. Uncle responded, saying that he would give plaintiff the promised $5000, but not yet, because the plaintiff would probably blow it on cigarettes, booze, card games, and the local pool sharks. Uncle would keep it until Plaintiff is deemed ready, and at that time, Plaintiff would receive money plus interest. Two years later, Uncle died without having fulfilled promise.

Assignments of the nephew's interest occurred in the following manner:

<span style="background:yellow">(William Story II) ==> (his wife) ==> (Louisa Hamer).</span>

<span style="background:green">Uncle William Story died. His executor was Sidway.</span>
|procedural_history=Hamer files suit against Sidway demanding money.

Sidway replied that the nephew (William Story II) had given no '''consideration''' for the uncle's $5,000; thus, according to Sidway, there was no [[contract law in the United States|contract]].
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hamer-v-sidway
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/hamer_sidway.htm
|case_text_source=NYCourts.gov
}}
}}


'''Holding''': A promise to give up smoking, etc. is a legal detriment because you are abandoning something that you have a legal right to do. Thus, there was consideration and the contract was valid.
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Sidway replied that the nephew (William Story II) had given no '''consideration''' for the uncle's $5,000; thus, according to Sidway, there was no [[contract law in the United States|contract]].
-|issues=Does a consideration exist if a party agrees to a deteriment?
-|holding=A promise to give up smoking, etc. is a legal <span style="background:pink">detriment</span> because you are abandoning something that you have a legal right to do. Thus, there was '''consideration''' and the contract was valid.
-|reasons=Consideration is found is a party agrees to incur a detriment.
-|rule=Forbearance may constitute adequate consideration sufficient to form a valid & enforceable contract.
 |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
 |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hamer-v-sidway
@@ Line 29: / Line 25: @@
 }}
 }}
+'''Holding''': A promise to give up smoking, etc. is a legal detriment because you are abandoning something that you have a legal right to do. Thus, there was consideration and the contract was valid.