Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of Indiana - 85 Ind. 294
Tags: Contracts, Consideration
tl;dr:
An old man executed a contract to provide for the education and welfare of a child in exchange for the child being named after him. The court held that this was valid consideration to support a contract.Video Summary
Case Summary
In Wolford v. Powers (1882), a man sued his friend's estate for contract violation, arguing that the friend agreed to give him $10,000 if he named his son after the friend. The man fulfilled the terms and also took care of the friend when he was ill. The friend wrote a note affirming the payment but passed away without making it, and his estate refused to pay.
The court decided in the man's favor, claiming that the contract had valid consideration. They argued that the man provided something valuable by naming his son after his friend, and he experienced a disadvantage by taking care of the friend during his illness. Additionally, the court noted that there were no fraudulent actions or manipulation involved.
The case highlights how consideration may take many forms, such as forfeiting a legal right, rendering a service, or enduring a loss. This concept refers to the exchange of something valuable or legally detrimental between parties, which convinces them to form a contract. Without consideration, even a promise made in good faith is not legally enforceable.
The case also reveals that courts will support promises based on friendship or gratitude if there's evidence that a negotiated exchange is present. Furthermore, it showcases the difference between nominal and adequate consideration: nominal consideration is a symbolic amount that doesn't represent the real value of the promise, while adequate consideration is a fair and sensible amount that genuinely reflects the promise's worth.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves a dispute over a promissory note, with one party arguing that only a small amount of money and naming a child after a deceased friend were the consideration, while the other party argues that personal services and a promise of generous compensation were also part of the consideration. The court upholds the general rule that contracts will be upheld as long as there is no fraud and parties receive all the consideration they contracted for. The court clarifies that the value of consideration does not need to be equal to the obligation incurred and that mere inadequacy of consideration is not a defense unless it bears upon the question of fraud or undue influence. The court notes that courts cannot overturn the parties' decision on the sufficiency of indeterminate consideration and that even small or seemingly worthless considerations can be sufficient to support a contract. The court also discusses exceptions to the general rule and clarifies that courts can only intervene and grant relief in cases where the consideration is grossly inadequate and amounts to fraud or oppression.
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.