0 0
District Court of Appeal of the State of California - 331 P.2d 419, 165 Cal. App. 2d 35
In Haase v. Cardoza (1958), a woman claimed that her brother-in-law promised to leave her $10,000 and her daughter $3,000 before he passed away. She sued his estate for breach of contract after receiving only eight payments from his widow, who then stopped paying and refused a note for the remaining balance. The case was dismissed because there was no valid contract between the parties.
The appellate court agreed, stating that the brother-in-law's promise was not binding due to a lack of consideration. This means there was no mutual exchange of something of value or a legal detriment that would create a binding agreement. The widow's promise was also not binding for the same reason.
This case highlights the importance of consideration in forming a contract. Without it, a promise is not legally enforceable, regardless of good faith and reliance. Courts will not uphold promises based solely on family ties or moral obligations unless there is evidence of an agreed-upon exchange.
Furthermore, the case demonstrates the distinction between a gift and a contract. A gift is the voluntary transfer of property without any expectation of return, whereas a contract is a mutual agreement that generates legal responsibilities.
The appellant sued the respondent to recover $10,000 based on an alleged oral promise made by the respondent to her deceased husband, and $3,000 on an assigned claim based on an alleged oral promise made by the respondent to pay Loretta M. Haase. The trial court granted the respondent's motion for a nonsuit at the close of the appellant's case. The appellant appealed the decision, citing the rule that every conflict in testimony must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff when considering the propriety of a judgment of nonsuit. The deceased and respondent entered into an inter vivos trust, where the survivor would receive the estate acquired during their marriage. The deceased later made a will, leaving the appellant $2,500, assuming there would be additional estate acquired. However, there was no estate subject to probate, and the bequest lapsed. Respondent voluntarily gave the appellant $2,500 from her own funds to fulfill the deceased's wishes. The appellant is the deceased's sister. Approximately 18 months after the respondent's husband's death, during a period of illness, the respondent confessed to the appellant that the deceased had left her $10,000 and the appellant $3,000, which she did not give to them. The respondent offered to pay the appellant $50 a month, which she did for eight months until the appellant asked for a note to cover the balance. The assignment of the $3,000 claim of Loretta M. Haase for the purpose of suit was agreed upon. The appellant testified to this conversation. The lower court erred in granting the respondent's motion for a nonsuit.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.