The rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to resolve the issue.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0c0DvFq_Y   Watch this video for an overview of consideration and a great explanation of legal detriment and legal benefit. Then complete the IRAC assignment below. This assignment is an opportunity to practice the IRAC method of case analysis. First, review the IRAC method if you need a refresher. You can find it under Course Resources. Read the fact pattern below, then answer the questions that follow. Hamer v. Sidway[1] Facts: William Story wanted his nephew to grow up healthy and prosperous. In 1869, he promised the 15-year-old boy $5,000 if the lad would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money, until his twenty-first birthday. The nephew had a legal right to do those things. The nephew agreed and kept his word. When he reached his twenty-first birthday, the nephew notified his uncle that he had honored the agreement. The uncle congratulated the young man and promised to give him the money, but said he would wait a few more years before handing over the cash, until the nephew was more mature. The uncle died and his estate refused to pay. Hamer, to whom the nephew had transferred his rights, sued. The estate argued that the nephew had given no consideration for the uncle’s promise. The trial court found for the plaintiff and the uncle’s estate appealed. What is the issue in this case? What question does the court need to answer to resolve this case? What is the rule of law in this case? Remember, the rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to resolve the issue. Which specific element of the rule is in question in this case? Next, read the Holding of the case below, then complete the exercise that follows. Holding: Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. The nephew gave valid consideration by refraining from doing things he was legally entitled to do. The estate argued that there was no consideration because the nephew benefited from avoiding the proscribed actions, but the court was unpersuaded: “Courts will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of any substantial value to anyone. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.” Underline the text that illustrates the rule of law in this case. Highlight the text that illustrates the court’s analysis of the case in a color of your choice. What was the court’s conclusion in this case?

Sample Solution

   

Great! I found an informative video on Youtube that explains consideration and legal detriment. Here is a summary of the video and how it relates to the case of Hamer v. Sidway:

Consideration

Consideration is a legal concept that requires a return promise or act in order for a contract to be enforceable. In the video, the case of Hamer v. Sidway is used to explain consideration.

Legal Detriment

Legal detriment is one way to fulfill the requirement of consideration. It means that the promisee (the person who receives the promise) has given up something of value in exchange for the promise. In the case of Hamer v. Sidway, the nephew gave up his legal right to drink, smoke, swear, and gamble in exchange for his uncle's promise to pay him $5,000. The court found that this was sufficient consideration to enforce the contract, even though the uncle did not receive any obvious benefit from his nephew's abstinence.

The video also talks about different theories of consideration:

  • Benefit-detriment conception of consideration
  • Bargained-for theory of consideration

Full Answer Section

     

The court's decision in Hamer v. Sidway can be seen as support for the bargained-for theory of consideration.

Let's now analyze the Hamer v. Sidway case using the IRAC method:

Issue

What is the issue in this case? What question does the court need to answer to resolve this case?

The issue in this case is whether the nephew's promise to abstain from certain activities constitutes sufficient consideration to enforce the uncle's promise to pay him $5,000.

Rule of Law

What is the rule of law in this case? Remember, the rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to enforce a contract.

The rule of law in this case is that a contract will be enforceable if there is consideration. Consideration can be either a legal detriment to the promisee (the person who receives the promise) or a legal benefit to the promisor (the person who makes the promise).

Analysis

Which specific element of the rule is in question in this case?

The specific element of the rule in question in this case is whether the nephew's promise to abstain from certain activities constitutes a legal detriment.

The court in Hamer v. Sidway found that the nephew's promise to abstain from drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling was a legal detriment. Even though these were activities that the nephew was already legally prohibited from engaging in as a minor, the court reasoned that his promise to refrain from them nonetheless constituted a legal detriment because it foreclosed the possibility that he might change his mind and engage in them in the future.

Conclusion

What was the court's conclusion in this case?

The court's conclusion in this case was that the nephew's promise to abstain from certain activities constituted sufficient consideration to enforce the uncle's promise to pay him $5,000. The court's decision in this case is an important precedent for the bargained-for theory of consideration.

We are here to help
We have crazy offers
It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.

We are here and ready to help

Order Now

IS IT YOUR FIRST TIME HERE? WELCOME

USE COUPON "11OFF" AND GET 11% OFF YOUR ORDERS

PLACE AN ORDER NOW REGISTER NOW