Hamer v. Sidway

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Hamer v. Sidway
Court Court of Appeals of New York
Citation 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891)
Date decided April 14, 1891

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:

(William Story II) ==> (his wife) ==> (Louisa Hamer).

Uncle William Story died. His executor was Sidway.

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.

Issues

Does a consideration exist if a party agrees to a deteriment?

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.

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.

Resources