Contracts Case Brief # 11

Title and Citation: Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) *

IMPORTANT*
Identities of Parties: The nephew assigned the funds to Louisa
Hamer (P) who brought suit against the executor of the uncles estate,
Franklin Sidway (D).
Procedural History: P sued D to enforce the promise in NY state
court and trail court upheld the promise. D sued to appellate court that
reversed the decision. P then appealed to Court of Appeals of New
York.
Facts: Story was told in order to receive 5,00 and interest from uncle
by if he abstain from drinking, using tobaccos, swearing, and playing
cards or billiards for money until he reached age twenty-one. Uncle
agreed and Story fully honored the promise by abstaining from these
things until after his twenty-first birthday. Story wrote his uncle to let
him that he fulfilled his promise; his uncle wrote back and said that he
was entitled to the $5,000, and that the money was being held for him
at a bank. Story would not be paid until the uncle thought he was
capable of taking care of it, he agreed to this. Story uncle died without
paying him the money, and claim was brought by P against D in New
York state court seeking to enforce the promise.
Issue(s): Does CONSIDERATION get satisfied to create a valid and
enforceable contract require the promisor to actually receive a benefit
and the promisor to experience a detriment?
Does the P restraint from swearing; playing pool and cards for
money and drinking satisfy consideration?
Holding and Rule: No, adequate consideration sufficient to form a
valid and enforceable contract may consist of either a right, interest,
profit, or benefit accrued to one party, or some forbearance, detriment,
loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.
Courts Reasoning: Story incurred a limitation on his legal right to
engage in certain activities sufficient to constitute adequate
consideration to form a valid and enforceable contract with his uncle.
Adequate consideration sufficient to form a valid and enforceable
contract may consist of either a right, interest, profit, or benefit
accrued to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or
responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. It does not
matter whether one party actually received a benefit or whether the
thing which forms the consideration is of any substantial value to

either party. Adequate consideration does not depend so much on a

promisors benefit from a contract as it does on the promisees
voluntary limitation of his legal rights or freedoms in exchange for the
promise. In exchange for his uncles promise of $5,000, Story
voluntarily restricted his legal freedom to engage in drinking, smoking,
swearing, and gambling. It is irrelevant whether his uncle actually
received any benefit from Storys actions. Storys voluntary agreement
to incur these limitations constitutes adequate consideration to form a
valid and enforceable contract with his uncle.
Judgment and Order: The decision of the appellate court is reversed,
and the decision of the trial court is affirmed.