Hamer v. Sidway
Court of Appeal of New York, 1891
Facts
- An uncle made a promise of paying his nephew $5,000 if he would restrain from swearing, drinking alcohol, and playing billiards and cards for money until he turned twenty-one (204).
- When the nephew, Willie, turns 21 and accomplishes the promise made, he writes to his uncle requesting for the money (204).
- The uncle writes back saying that the nephew is not old enough to manage the finances, thus, he should wait until he is old enough and even agrees to pay the accrued interest.
- Twelve years later, the uncle dies without having transferred the money to the nephew, breaking the promise made several years ago in front of witnesses (205).
- The nephew sues the executor of the estate seeking payment for fulfilling the promise made to his uncle.
Procedural History
- The executor of the estate claimed that the promise was invalid since there was no consideration.
- He argued that the promise was for the nephew and did not benefit the uncle, hence, there was no need to pay the money as promised.
- The court ruled that the nephew had to be paid since he had quit his lawful rights under the motivation of the uncle’s promise. Even though he benefited, it had altered his constitutional freedom of engaging in the activities he promised to restrain from.
- The case was reverse for Hamer v. Sidway and the plaintiff won the case (206).
Issue
By the uncle making a promise to the nephew that if he quits his un-recommendable behaviors he would pay him $5,000, this shows good will from the uncle. As such, the uncle does not benefit from the promise; hence, from this perspective, there is no succinct reason as to why the money should be paid (206). On the contrary, the nephew adheres to the promise made and quits all the behaviors, which she had a right to exercise. Abandoning the use of the stimulants shows effort from the nephew, which is motivated by his uncle’s promise. Therefore, the court should answer whether the estate executor should proceed to fulfil the promise of the dead uncle or not.
Holding
The court ruled that the nephew performed all the conditions provided in the promise and found no subject that would dictate that the uncle did not benefit from the legal sense (206). Therefore, the order was reversed, and the cost was expected to be paid out of the estate.
Reasoning
- The court ruled that the promisee, who used tobacco and alcohol, was not doing it against the law.
- Willie had a legal right of using these substances, but based on the uncle’s promise, which was made on the 20th day of March 1869, he had to put effort to quit his legal rights (205).
- The nephew benefited from the promise, which the defendant argued was not beneficial to the uncle and did not have a consideration to support it (206).
- “Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in future as an inducement for the promise of the first (206).” Based on this statement, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid regardless of whether the other party benefited or not.
Disposition
The plaintiff, Willie, won the case since the judgment affirmed that the cost was to be payable out of the estate (206). Therefore, the promise of being paid $5000 with the accrued interest was enforceable.
