Hamer v. Sidway reflection
Reaction Paper Hamer v. Sidway
The case of Hamer vs. Sidway takes into account consideration in regards to written agreements and contracts. Hamer sued Mr. Sidway, the executor of the estate of William Story. Story was the uncle of the plaintiff. Story promised in writing in a letter to his nephew if Hamer maintained sobriety and refrained from gambling, he would give Hamer $5,000 upon his nephew’s twenty-first birthday. Hamer did not receive the money on his birthday after obliging by the agreement because Story said Hamer was not yet responsible enough to handle the funds, but he did recognize that Hamer upheld the agreement.
Unfortunately for Hamer, his uncle ended up dying before he ever received the money. Hamer demanded the $5,000 from Mr. Sidway, but was dismissed. Hamer won the case in the appeal and the case helped define legal integrity of agreements by proving consideration. I found the case interesting given the casual nature of agreement between Hamer and Story. In a business perspective, the case made me view the power of language in any kind of written correspondence, whether or not the agreement is particularly “official.”
Personally, I found that Hamer’s argument was fairly hard to prove. Though he had several letters that justify his reasoning, questions that could contradict his argument were raised. Story made it clear in the letters that Hamer would get money for living a sober lifestyle, however there was no real way to prove that Hamer actually upheld the promise. In addition, Story refused to give Hamer the money because he felt Story was not yet responsible. There was not anything in the letters that outlined what Story viewed as responsible. Did Story really want Hamer to have the money? Even if Story did, when should Hamer get it?
I believe that the strength in Hamer’s argument laid in the fact that Story acknowledged that he did uphold the agreement. Also, if not more so important, there was nothing in said
The case of Hamer vs. Sidway takes into account consideration in regards to written agreements and contracts. Hamer sued Mr. Sidway, the executor of the estate of William Story. Story was the uncle of the plaintiff. Story promised in writing in a letter to his nephew if Hamer maintained sobriety and refrained from gambling, he would give Hamer $5,000 upon his nephew’s twenty-first birthday. Hamer did not receive the money on his birthday after obliging by the agreement because Story said Hamer was not yet responsible enough to handle the funds, but he did recognize that Hamer upheld the agreement.
Unfortunately for Hamer, his uncle ended up dying before he ever received the money. Hamer demanded the $5,000 from Mr. Sidway, but was dismissed. Hamer won the case in the appeal and the case helped define legal integrity of agreements by proving consideration. I found the case interesting given the casual nature of agreement between Hamer and Story. In a business perspective, the case made me view the power of language in any kind of written correspondence, whether or not the agreement is particularly “official.”
Personally, I found that Hamer’s argument was fairly hard to prove. Though he had several letters that justify his reasoning, questions that could contradict his argument were raised. Story made it clear in the letters that Hamer would get money for living a sober lifestyle, however there was no real way to prove that Hamer actually upheld the promise. In addition, Story refused to give Hamer the money because he felt Story was not yet responsible. There was not anything in the letters that outlined what Story viewed as responsible. Did Story really want Hamer to have the money? Even if Story did, when should Hamer get it?
I believe that the strength in Hamer’s argument laid in the fact that Story acknowledged that he did uphold the agreement. Also, if not more so important, there was nothing in said