HAMER v SIDWAY (1891) CONSIDERATION MUST BE SUFFICIENT, IT NEED NOT BE ADEQUATE: Sufficiency of consideration

?

An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew would refrain from 'drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money until he should become 21 years of age'. The nephew complied, but the defendant, the uncle's executor, refused to make the payment.

Held: The promise was enforceable because the nephew had provided consideration for the uncle's promise by restricting his lawful freedom of action.

PARKER J: The defendant contends that the contract was without consideration to support it, and therefore invalid. He asserts that the promisee, by refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco, was not harmed, but benefited; that that which he did was best for him to do, independently of his uncle's promise,—and insists that it follows that, unless the promisor was benefited, the contract was without consideration,—a contention which, if well founded, would seem to leave open for controversy in many cases whether that which the promisee did

Comments

No comments have yet been made