Kirksey v. Kirksey
Citation: 8 Ala. 131 (1845)
Facts
After the plaintiff’s husband died, his brother (the defendant) wrote her a letter promising that if she would come to live on his land, he would give her a place to raise her family. She sold her land and moved her family 60 miles to his property. Two years later, he required her to leave an uncomfortable home he had put her in.
Issue
Was the defendant’s promise to provide a home to his widowed sister-in-law supported by consideration, and is he bound by the promise?
Holding
The court reversed the trial court’s verdict for plaintiff, holding for defendant. The brother’s promise was a “mere gratuity” — a gift conditioned on her coming, not a bargained-for exchange. The promise was not supported by consideration because her move was not the price of his promise; it was merely the condition of receiving it.
Rule
Condition vs. consideration: A promise that requires the promisee to perform some act as a condition of receiving a gift is not supported by consideration if the act is not the price bargained for by the promisor. The condition (moving there) was not bargained for — it was merely the mechanism for receiving the gift.
Significance
- Classic early case on the consideration doctrine, distinguishing conditions from consideration
- The loss to plaintiff was real and substantial, yet no contract enforcement — illustrates the harshness of strict consideration doctrine
- Frequently used to introduce promissory estoppel as a doctrine that fills the gap left by strict consideration rules (Ricketts v. Scothorn and Restatement § 90 would likely provide relief today)
- Shows why courts developed promissory estoppel: where reliance on a promise causes substantial harm, equitable recovery may be available even without consideration