Please provide reaction to discussion below if you agree or not: In the intriguing case of Hamer v. Sidway it's a tale of family and an unusual agreement. William E. Story made a unique promise to his nephew, William E. Story II. He pledged to pay him a substantial sum, let's say $500,000 in today's terms, on the condition that William II refrained from indulging in vices like drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21. William II, being the determined individual he was adhered to these conditions, even though he may have derived some personal benefits from such abstinence. He successfully fulfilled the terms of his uncle's offer and proved his commitment to the agreement. However the situation took an unexpected turn when William E. Story passed away, and his executor, Sidway, refused to release the promised sum to William II. Sidway's argument was that the contract lacked consideration. He contended that William II's compliance did not provide any benefit to William Story and that William II, in fact, benefited from the abstinence. In deciding this case it's essential to consider the concept of consideration in contract law. William II could rely on the principle of "bargained-for exchange." This means that consideration exists in a contract when both parties give something up or make a promise in exchange for something from the other party. In this case, William II refrained from certain behaviors as per his uncle's request, and in return, he was promised a substantial amount of money. Even though refraining from drinking smoking, swearing, and gambling might have been beneficial to William II personally, it doesn't negate the consideration in the contract. The law generally upholds individuals' freedom to make contracts as they see fit, even if both parties benefit. Therefore, the court would likely rule in favor of William II, recognizing that he provided valid consideration by fulfilling the terms of the agreement, and he should rightfully receive the $500,000 promised by his uncle's will. It's about upholding the principle of keeping promises made in a contract and respecting the mutual exchange that took place.
Please provide reaction to discussion below if you agree or not:
In the intriguing case of Hamer v. Sidway it's a tale of family and an unusual agreement. William E. Story made a unique promise to his nephew, William E. Story II. He pledged to pay him a substantial sum, let's say $500,000 in today's terms, on the condition that William II refrained from indulging in vices like drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21.
William II, being the determined individual he was adhered to these conditions, even though he may have derived some personal benefits from such abstinence. He successfully fulfilled the terms of his uncle's offer and proved his commitment to the agreement.
However the situation took an unexpected turn when William E. Story passed away, and his executor, Sidway, refused to release the promised sum to William II. Sidway's argument was that the contract lacked consideration. He contended that William II's compliance did not provide any benefit to William Story and that William II, in fact, benefited from the abstinence.
In deciding this case it's essential to consider the concept of consideration in contract law. William II could rely on the principle of "bargained-for exchange." This means that consideration exists in a contract when both parties give something up or make a promise in exchange for something from the other party. In this case, William II refrained from certain behaviors as per his uncle's request, and in return, he was promised a substantial amount of money.
Even though refraining from drinking smoking, swearing, and gambling might have been beneficial to William II personally, it doesn't negate the consideration in the contract. The law generally upholds individuals' freedom to make contracts as they see fit, even if both parties benefit. Therefore, the court would likely rule in favor of William II, recognizing that he provided valid consideration by fulfilling the terms of the agreement, and he should rightfully receive the $500,000 promised by his uncle's will. It's about upholding the principle of keeping promises made in a contract and respecting the mutual exchange that took place.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
