Hamer v Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 06:59:01 UTC
(NB American case, but CW says regarded as good law by English courts)
Plaintiff paid his nephew to refrain from smoking, gambling and drinking and the court held the contract to be valid since the consideration was the foregoing of a legal right to engage in those activities.
CW: this could equally be said of Bluett where the son was giving up his right to freely speak on the matter of his inheritance (despite Pollock’s incorrect assertion above).
Therefore the two cases conflict.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
White v Bluett
To admit the son’s promise not to complain as consideration would be to allow anything of negligible value to constitute consideration in which case the idea of a trade of benefits in a contract woul...
Cheese v Thomas
Plaintiff agreed to contribute £40k towards his nephew, Defendant, buying a house that Plaintiff would be allowed to live in for life. Later learning that Defendant had missed several payments, Plain...
Re Cavendish Browne
Covenants are legally binding agreements that impose restrictions or obligations on property use, often found in real estate transactions. They help maintain community standards by requiring property...
Foakes v Beer
Plaintiff was owed money by Defendant and stated that Defendant, who couldn’t repay him on time, could pay in instalments and Plaintiff would not sue for the interest from the late repayment. HL said...
Lampleigh v Braithwaite
Consideration is a necessary element for a contract to be valid. A contract without consideration is not legally enforceable. A voluntary act done out of courtesy does not constitute sufficient consi...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.