William E. Story agreed to pay his nephew, William E. Story II, a large sum of money (for purposes of this hypothetical, $500,000 in today's dollars) "if he would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he should come to be 21 years of age." William II had been using tobacco and occasionally drank liquor but refrained from using these stimulants over several years until he was 21 and also lived up to the other requirements of his uncle's offer. Just after William II's 21st birthday, Story acknowledged that William II had fulfilled his part of the bargain and advised that the money would be invested for him with interest. Story died, and his executor, Sidway, refused to pay William II because he believed the contract between Story and William II was without consideration. Sidway asserted that Story received no benefit from William II's performance and William II suffered no detriment (in fact, by his refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco, William II was not harmed but benefited, Sidway asserted). Is there any theory of consideration that William II can rely on? How would you decide this case? [Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538]

William E. Story agreed to pay his nephew, William E. Story II, a large sum of money (for purposes of this hypothetical, $500,000 in today's dollars) "if he would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he should come to be 21 years of age." William II had been using tobacco and occasionally drank liquor but refrained from using these stimulants over several years until he was 21 and also lived up to the other requirements of his uncle's offer. Just after William II's 21st birthday, Story acknowledged that William II had fulfilled his part of the bargain and advised that the money would be invested for him with interest. Story died, and his executor, Sidway, refused to pay William II because he believed the contract between Story and William II was without consideration. Sidway asserted that Story received no benefit from William II's performance and William II suffered no detriment (in fact, by his refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco, William II was not harmed but benefited, Sidway asserted). Is there any theory of consideration that William II can rely on? How would you decide this case? [Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538]

Similar questions

Abigail is in the business of selling fine antiques. Abigail purchased an antique desk for $5,000 from Jackson, and gave a promissory note for payment. Concerned that Jackson might not accept the note, Abigail had her friend Catalina sign the promissory note as well. Jackson accepted the note as payment. Two weeks later, Jackson sought payment on the note. Abigail told Jackson that she is not responsible for the promissory note because Catalina signed the note too, and Jackson had to seek payment from Catalina first. Abigail also spotted a beautiful set of vintage chairs owned by Max that would be perfect for her store. Abigail wrote a $10,000 check, also signed by her business associate Orville as an accommodation party, to Max to pay for the chairs. Max presented the check to Westville Savings, the bank where Abigail has a checking account, for payment. Westville Savings dishonored the check claiming Abigail had insufficient funds. Who is liable for these negotiable…
which of the following is not a tort: Conspiracy, deceit, inducing a breach of contract, injurious falsehood, passing off action
Columbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents. The notes represented the balance of tuition he owed the University. Jacobsen counterclaimed for money damages due to Columbia’s deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. Jacobsen argues that Columbia fraudulently misrepresented that it would teach wisdom, truth, character, enlightenment, and similar virtues and qualities. He specifically cites as support the Columbia motto: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen” (“In your light we shall see light”); the inscription over the college chapel: “Wisdom dwelleth in the heart of him that hath understanding”; and various excerpts from its brochures, catalogues, and a convocation address made by the University’s president. Jacobsen, a senior who was not graduated because of poor scholastic standing, claims that the University’s failure to meet its promises made through these quotations constituted fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. Decision?
In a written contract, Sheldon agreed to tutor the children of Mrs. Smith for a certain period of time. However, Sheldon, prior to starting classes, announced that he would not be able to tutor the children due to other commitments of his. In this case, there has been a(n): rescission. negligent breach. anticipatory breach. O malpractice.
Courtney lived in Wyoming. On New Year’s Day she purchased a weight loss drug manufactured in Oklahoma by an Oklahoma Corporation, Ozzipic, Inc. Courtney learned of the drug from multiple advertisements on her local television station and in local newspapers. After suffering from a serious gastrointestinal illness, she sued Ozzipic in a Wyoming state court for $100,000. Ozzipic argued that Wyoming did not have personal jurisdiction over them because they were an Oklahoma corporation. How should the court rule? a. Wyoming does not have personal jurisdiction over the Oklahoma defendants because an advertisement in a local paper does not amount to minimum contacts. b. This case should be transferred to Federal Court based on Diversity Jurisdiction, as the plaintiff and defendant are from two different states and the plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000 in damages. c. Wyoming has personal jurisdiction over the Oklahoma defendants because they made one sale in…
Joseph M. Billy was an employee of the USM Corporation (USM), a publicly held corporation. Billy was at work when a 4,600-pound ram from a vertical boring mill broke loose and crushed him to death. Billy’s widow sued, alleging that the accident was caused by certain defects in the manufacture and design of the vertical boring mill and the two moving parts directly involved in the accident, a metal lifting arm and the 4,600-pound ram. If Mrs. Billy’s suit is successful, can the shareholders of USM be held personally liable for any judgment against USM? Explain your answer.
Arlene, a minor, buys a stereo from Savannah and signs a promissory note in the amount of $500 payable to Savannah within six months to cover the cost of the stereo. Savannah indorses the promissory note and transfers it to Alvin as payment for Alvin painting Savannah's house. When Alvin tries to collect the note from Arlene at the end of the six months, if Arlene refuses to pay: Alvin will be successful in collecting the payment because he is a holder in due course. Alvin will be successful because he is not a holder in due course. Alvin will be unsuccessful in collecting the payment even though he is a holder in due course.
An intruder entered through a window and raped McCutchen in her apartment. MCutchen sued the landlord, Ten Associates, for failure to provide adequate security and failure to warn her of the risk of intrusion through the window. Ten Associates claimed that they had no way of anticipating an intruder. Evidence was introduced that revealed the landlord knew or should have known of a prior rape and numerous intrusions through apartment windows. Does it appear that Ten Associates was negligent in providing for the security of tenants?
Leon A. Tashof operated a store known as the New York Jewelry Company. The store was located in an area that served low-income consumers, many of whom had low-paying jobs and had no bank or charge accounts. About 85 percent of the store’s sales were made on credit. The store advertised eyeglasses “from $7.50 complete,” including “lenses, frames and case.” Tashof advertised this sale extensively on radio and in newspapers. Evidence showed that of the 1,400 pairs of eyeglasses sold by the store, fewer than 10 were sold for $7.50; the rest were more expensive glasses. The Federal Trade Commission sued Tashof for engaging in bait-and-switch marketing, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. a) Explain what a bait and switch is. b) Was Tashof’s conduct in this case ethical? c) Who wins, and why?
Bob, an engineer, is a new employee at Airbag Industries, which specializes in manufacturing automotive airbags. Before his employment, Bob is required to sign various documents indicating that he would have access to confidential information related to Airbag Industries' business practices, customer lists, and other information that must remain confidential. It further provided that any new developments created by Bob would be the property of Airbag Industries. Further, it provided that if Bob left the company he could not compete against the company in the United States for 10 years. Bob leaves three years later to set up his own airbag company. Explain why protecting their intellectual property is important to Airbag Industries. What intellectual property issues are involved in this scenario?
A. 1. X, Y, and Z, co-owners, sold a inverter air-condition unit to A. They solidarity bound themselves to deliver the aircon unit in March 30. Through the fault of Y, the aircon unit was completely destroyed . Give the rights and obligations of the parties. B. 1. Joe, Nicolas, and Dante obliged themselves jointly to deliver to Ricky a particular racing horse on April 1. Their agreement which was made known to Ricky is that they will contribute the amount in buying the particular horse. However, the horse was not delivered on the date due because of failure of Nicolas to give his share of the purchase price. State the rights and obligations of the parties. 2. Dindo binds himself to pay his P20,000 loan in four (4) equal monthly installments. Is the obligation of Dindo divisible or indivisible? C. 1. Jaevis promised to deliver to Kyle a breeding cow. Their contract contains a penal clause that in the case of non-fulfillment, Jaevis Shall pay a penalty of P10,000. Jaevis wants to juts…
Joseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.