Hamer Vs Sidway Case brief
Business law 1101 ATRA
Professor. Waller
10/20/14
Hamer V.S. Sidway
Facts:
William E. Story promised his nephew William E. Story I
I $5,000 under the condition that the nephew refrains from drinking, using tobacco, gambl ing, and swearing until he turned
21. When William E. Story II turned 21, his uncle sent him a letter saying he earned the money,
When the nephew turned 21 the uncle said he would hold the mone y with interest until the nephew became capable of taking care of it responsibly (unc le didn’t cancel the contract when he turned 21). The uncle died 12 years later without transferring the fund to the nephew in addition to the accumulated interest. Plaintiff (nephew) sued Def endant (uncle’s estate) for breach of contract. The court of appeals reversed and agreed that th e judgment of the trial court be affirmed. Contentions of parties:
Plaintiff believes that refraining from legal activitie s in a contract counts as a consideration. Plaintiff believes since the re was consideration (refraining from certain Legal activities) and a return promise. he is in a contract to which the Defendant breached. Defendant believes that there was no contrac t due to lack of consideration.
Issue:
Does not participating in certain activities constitute as a consideration even if it doesn’t benefit the other party?
Decision
: Reversed in favor of Hamer.
Legal Reasoning:
Refraining from a legal activity constitutes as consider ation. The nephew had all the legal right but refrained from doing so to comply w ith the promise thus he accepted the terms of contract. Also, the uncle lost his right to k eep the money at the end of the contract by engaging in the promise.
Professor. Waller
10/20/14
Hamer V.S. Sidway
Facts:
William E. Story promised his nephew William E. Story I
I $5,000 under the condition that the nephew refrains from drinking, using tobacco, gambl ing, and swearing until he turned
21. When William E. Story II turned 21, his uncle sent him a letter saying he earned the money,
When the nephew turned 21 the uncle said he would hold the mone y with interest until the nephew became capable of taking care of it responsibly (unc le didn’t cancel the contract when he turned 21). The uncle died 12 years later without transferring the fund to the nephew in addition to the accumulated interest. Plaintiff (nephew) sued Def endant (uncle’s estate) for breach of contract. The court of appeals reversed and agreed that th e judgment of the trial court be affirmed. Contentions of parties:
Plaintiff believes that refraining from legal activitie s in a contract counts as a consideration. Plaintiff believes since the re was consideration (refraining from certain Legal activities) and a return promise. he is in a contract to which the Defendant breached. Defendant believes that there was no contrac t due to lack of consideration.
Issue:
Does not participating in certain activities constitute as a consideration even if it doesn’t benefit the other party?
Decision
: Reversed in favor of Hamer.
Legal Reasoning:
Refraining from a legal activity constitutes as consider ation. The nephew had all the legal right but refrained from doing so to comply w ith the promise thus he accepted the terms of contract. Also, the uncle lost his right to k eep the money at the end of the contract by engaging in the promise.