Hamer vs Sidway Legal Process - Assignment Example

The nephew accepted the terms but after twelve years, the uncle lost his life before transferring the funds to his nephew’s account. The nephew assigned Louisa Hamer (P) the funds. P brought suit against the executor of Willian E. Story's (the uncle) estate, Franklin Sidway (D). During the judgment, the case was ruled in favor of P but later on appeal was reversed in favor of D. P appealed (1967).
Issue
Is mere abstention regarding legal behavior sufficient consideration to come up with a contract that is valid and enforceable?

Rule
Yes. Mere abstention from legal conduct that is permissible is sufficient consideration to seal a promise that is based on the forbearance of a valid contract. Consideration is not taken as a benefit to the person who promises. When someone’s offer is ambiguous regarding whether accepting it shall be in the form of an exchange of promises or performance, determining if the person who offered was indifferent to whether accepting be in the form of performance or promise is realized by interpreting the language for the offer under the circumstances it was given. According to the court’s rule concerning this case, the language of the offer was clear that the uncle sought acceptance not by a promise to perform but by performance. D argued that the contract was not valid for it did not have consideration, and there is no consideration unless there is a benefit to the person who promised. Refraining from a thing that someone is entitled to do is enough to create an enforceable contract.

Rationale
Under the bargain test for consideration, Hamer's forbearance was somehow a benefit to Sidway and a detriment to him. D benefited by having his nephew refraining from a conduct he did not like and P faced a detriment by denying himself the conduct’s enjoyments. Read More