At a large party, Uncle Story
promised Nephew Story that if he didn't drink before 21, he'd pay him $5k.
$5k was a lot of money in
those days.
Nephew Story did as he was
told, and when he turned 21 he wrote his uncle for the money. Uncle wrote
him a letter saying he had the money in the bank, but would hold it for
him.
Several years later he died
without giving any money to Nephew Story.
Nephew Story sold the promise
of $5k to Hamer, who then sued the executor of the estate for the money
(Sidway was the executor).
The Trial Court found for
Hamer. Sidway appealed.
The Trial Court found that
it was indeed a valid contract, and that Nephew Story had lived up to his
part of the bargain.
Sidway claimed that the
contract was without consideration
and was therefore void. By not drinking the promisee was not harmed, but
benefited!
The Appellate Court reversed.
Hamer appealed.
The New York Supreme Court
reversed and awarded the $5k to Hamer.
The New York Supreme Court
found that, based on the definition of consideration, consideration had been given.
The Court found that it does
not matter what the consideration
is, or what it is worth to whom, it just matters that one person gives
something up in exchange for something else.
Btw, the nephew could not give
up the right to drink until 21 under today's law because that would be
illegal. A consideration could not be a promise to give up something that
you can't legally do.
