Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Hamer v. Sidway

(1891)

New York Court of Appeals - 27 N.E. 256, 124 N.Y. 538

tl;dr:

An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned 21. The nephew complied.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1891 case of Hamer v. Sidway, the New York Court of Appeals confirmed that agreeing not to do something you're legally allowed to do can be a valid basis for a contract. This case involved an uncle who promised his nephew $5,000 if he avoided drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling until he turned 21. The nephew followed these rules and asked for the money when he came of age. Though the uncle agreed to pay, he died before doing so, and his executor refused to pay the nephew's representative, claiming there was no contract since the nephew hadn't given anything in return for the uncle's promise. The representative sued the executor for breaking the contract.

The court ruled in favor of the nephew, finding a valid contract between the uncle and the nephew. The court said that a contract could be based either on a benefit to the person making the promise or a disadvantage to the person receiving it. In this case, the nephew's choice not to drink, smoke, swear, or gamble was enough of a disadvantage to form a contract. The court dismissed the executor's claim that the uncle received no benefit from the nephew's behavior, stating that the person making the promise didn't need to actually benefit for the contract to be valid, as long as the other party gave something up or acted in a certain way based on the promise.

This case is important because it set a precedent in contract law for defining consideration, the requirement that something be exchanged for a contract to be valid. It highlights how courts view consideration as a key element of contracts and how they enforce contracts based on what the parties intended, not on their opinions of what qualifies as a benefit or a disadvantage.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Hamer v. Sidway

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hamer v. Sidway case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingHamer v. Sidway case brief facts & holding

Facts:An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 if he refrained from...

Holding:Promising to abstain from drinking and smoking, when one has...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hamer v. Sidway case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Hamer v. Sidway | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Parker, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves a contract between an uncle and his nephew, where the nephew refrained from using tobacco and drinking liquor in exchange for $5,000 on his twenty-first birthday. The court found that the nephew's abstinence constituted valid consideration for the promise, regardless of whether the uncle benefited from it. The case also involves the Statute of Frauds, which the defendant waived through subsequent statements. The court must determine whether the relationship between the uncle and nephew was that of debtor and creditor or trustee and beneficiary. The court found that a trust can be created without specific language, as long as the settlor's intention is clear and the property and its disposition are defined. The uncle acknowledged his indebtedness to his nephew and stated that he would keep the money until he deemed him capable of taking care of it, indicating that he had set apart the money for him. The nephew assented to this declaration, and all the necessary elements for the creation of a valid trust were present.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hamer v. Sidway case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hamer v. Sidway case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

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+.

14-Day Free Trial

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.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

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

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.

Brief anything. Instantly.

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.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

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.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

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.

Hamer v. Sidway

Chat for Hamer v. Sidway
brief-151
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.