ENFORCEABILITY Flashcards
HAMER v SIDWAY: According to bargain test, was uncle’s promise to his nephew supported by consideration?
Yes, it is supported by consideration – uncle is giving money in exchange for the conduct and nephew is foregoing a legal right to engage in those activities in exchange for the money.
HAMER v SIDWAY: According to bargain test, would it have mattered if the uncle’s executor could prove that the nephew’s forbearance did not harm him, but actually benefited him?
No, it would not matter whether he was
actually benefitted; it is consideration
because he is legally harmed by foregoing a
legal right
HAMER v SIDWAY: Would uncle’s promise be enforceable if he bargained not for the nephew’s refraining from drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling, as in the actual case, but merely for the nephew’s promise to refrain from such activities (assuming the nephew promised to do so)? Why?
Yes, a return promise is consideration.
HAMER v SIDWAY: Suppose that the nephew stopped drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling all on his own and the uncle, overcome with joy, promised him $5,000. Is the promise enforceable?
No – the performance was done in
exchange for the money.
HAMER v SIDWAY: The nephew approaches the uncle and promises to stop drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling. The uncle, overcome with joy, promises to pay the nephew $5,000. Is the promise enforceable?
No – the promise to pay was not done in
exchange for the promise to perform, just
in response to that promise
HAMER v SIDWAY: The nephew is addicted to coke. The uncle, wishing his nephew to stop, approaches him and says: “Nephew if you stop your cocaine habit until you’re 21, I’ll give you $5,000.” The nephew stops. When he turns 21, he walks up to uncle and says I need $5,000 to buy some coke. Uncle refuses and the nephew sues. Result?
COKE IS ILLEGAL YOU IDIOT. There is no consideration; what he gave up (doing cocaine) was not something he had a legal right to do in the first place.
In consideration of one cent received, A promises to pay $600 in three yearly installments of $200 each. Is there valid consideration? 79.
No. The one cent is merely nominal and is not consideration for A’s promise.
A offers to buy a book owned by B and to pay B
$10 in exchange therefor. B accepts the offer and
delivers the book to A. Is there consideration?
Yes. The transfer and delivery of the book constitute
a performance and are consideration for A’s
promise. This is so even though A at the time he
makes the offer secretly intends to pay B $10
whether or not he gets the book, or even
though B at the time he accepts secretly intends
not to collect the $10.
A receives a gift from B of a book worth $10.
Subsequently A promises to pay B the value of
the book. Is there consideration?
No. There is no consideration for A’s promise. This
is so even though B at the time he makes the
gift secretly hopes that A will pay him for it.
A promises to make a gift of $10 to B. In reliance
on the promise B buys a book from C and
promises to pay C $10 for it. Is there consideration?
No. There is no consideration for A’s promise.
A desires to make a binding promise to give
$1000 to his son B. Being advised that a
gratuitous promise is not binding, A writes out
and signs a false recital that B has sold him a car
for $1000 and a promise to pay that amount. Is there consideration?
No. There is no consideration for A’s promise.
A desires to make a binding promise to give
$1000 to his son B. Being advised that a
gratuitous promise is not binding, A offers to buy
from B for $1000 a book worth less than $1. B
accepts the offer knowing that the purchase of
the book is a mere pretense. Is there consideration?
No. There is no consideration for A’s promise to
pay $1000.
A offers to buy a book owned by B and to pay B $10 in exchange therefor. Is B’s transfer and delivery of the book valid consideration for A’s promise, even though both parties know that such books regularly sell for $5 and that part of A’s motive in making the offer is to make a gift to B?
Yes. B’s transfer and delivery of the book are consideration for A’s promise even though both parties know that such books regularly sell for $5 and that part of A’s motive in making the offer is to make a gift to B.
A owns land worth $10,000 which is subject to a mortgage to secure a debt of $5,000. A promises to make a gift of the land to his son B and to pay off the mortgage, and later gives B a deed subject to the mortgage. Is B’s acceptance of the deed consideration for A’s promise?
No. B’s acceptance of the deed is not consideration for A’s promise to pay the mortgage debt.
A and B agree that A will advance $1000 to B as a gratuitous loan. Is B’s promise to accept the loan consideration for A’s promise to make it?
No. B’s promise to accept the loan is not consideration for A’s promise to make it. But the loan when made is consideration for B’s promise to repay.
A promises B, his nephew aged 16, that A will pay B $1000 when B becomes 21 if B does not smoke before then. Is B’s giving up smoking consideration for A’s promise?
Yes. B’s forbearance to smoke is a performance and if bargained for is consideration for A’s promise.
A says to B, the owner of a garage, “I will pay you $100 if you will make my car run properly.” If B makes the car run properly, is that consideration for A’s promise?
Yes. The production of this result is consideration for A’s promise.
