Hamer v. Sidway
Citation: Court of Appeals of New York, 124 N.Y. 538 (1891)
Facts
William Story Sr. promised his nephew, William Story II, that if the nephew refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until age 21, the uncle would pay him $5,000. The nephew complied with these conditions. After the uncle died, his estate refused to pay, arguing that the promise lacked consideration because refraining from vices benefited the nephew rather than burdening him.
Issue
Whether forbearance from a legal right — even if the forbearance is personally beneficial to the promisor — constitutes valid consideration for a contract.
Holding
The court held that the nephew’s forbearance from activities he had a legal right to engage in constituted valid consideration, and the estate was bound to pay. Consideration does not require a detriment to the promisee in a practical sense; it requires only that the promisee do or refrain from doing something they had a legal right to do.
Rule
Consideration exists when a promisee refrains from exercising a legal right at the promisor’s request, regardless of whether the forbearance is practically beneficial or detrimental to the promisee.
Significance
A canonical case establishing that consideration is defined by legal detriment — the surrender of a legal right — rather than by economic or practical burden. It is central to teaching the bargain theory of consideration and debunking the intuitive but incorrect notion that consideration must hurt the promisee.