Hamer v. Sidway (1891)

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern)

Issue: Whether a promise to refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the age of 21, constitutes sufficient consideration for a valid contract when such a promise is made in exchange for a later financial reward.

Rule: A contract must have consideration, which is something of value exchanged for a promise. This may include the forbearance or giving up of a legal right as sufficient consideration.

Application: In this case, William E. Story II, the uncle, promised to pay his nephew, William E. Story I, a sum of money if the nephew refrained from engaging in certain activities until he turned 21. The nephew fulfilled the condition and thus gave up his legal right to engage in these activities, which constituted sufficient consideration for the uncle’s promise.

Conclusion: The court held that the nephew’s forbearance was valuable consideration for the uncle’s promise, making the contract valid and enforceable. The nephew was entitled to the promised payment.

Detailed IRAC Outline:

I. Issue

A detailed examination of the legal question regarding whether forbearance from legal activities can constitute valid consideration for a promise.

II. Rule

A. Definition and principles governing consideration in contract law.

B. Legal precedents and statutory regulations that pertain to consideration, including the requirement that consideration be something of legal value, which may involve a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor.

III. Application

A. Facts of the Case:

  1. Background and relationship between the parties.
  2. The specific promise made by the uncle to the nephew and the conditions attached to it.
  3. Actions taken by the nephew to fulfill the conditions of the promise.
  4. Claims made by the executor of the uncle’s will after the uncle’s death.

B. Discussion:

  1. Analysis of how forbearance from the nephew’s legal rights to drink, smoke, swear, and gamble can be seen as a detriment to the nephew or a benefit to the uncle.
  2. Examination of the nephew’s actions in relation to the promise made by the uncle and whether those actions align with the legal requirement for consideration.
  3. Review of any objections raised by the executor of the uncle’s will, including the argument that the promise was not enforceable for lack of consideration.
  4. Consideration of the relevant legal authorities and previous case law that support the court’s reasoning.

IV. Conclusion

A. Restatement of the holding that the nephew’s forbearance constituted sufficient consideration for the uncle’s promise.

B. The impact of the court’s decision on the enforceability of the contract, including the ruling that the nephew is entitled to the promised payment.

C. Broader implications of the case in the context of contract law and the principle of consideration.

Discover more from Legal Three

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading