Question

In 1869, William E. Story promised his nephew, William E. Story II (then sixteen years old), $5,000 (about $120,000 in today’s money) if “Willie” would abstain from drinking alcohol, smoking, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached twenty-one years of age. All of these were legally permissible activities for the teenager at that time in New York State. Willie accepted his uncle’s promise and did refrain from the prohibited acts until he turned twenty-one. When the young man asked for the money, his uncle wrote to him that he would honor the promise but would rather wait until Willie was older before delivering the money, interest added on. Willie agreed. Subsequently, Willie assigned the right to receive the money to one Hamer (Willie wanted the money sooner), and Story I died without making any payment. The estate, administered by Franklin Sidway, refused to pay, asserting there was no binding contract due to lack of consideration: the boy suffered no “detriment,” and the uncle got no benefit. The trial court agreed with the estate, and the plaintiff appealed. Should the court on appeal affirm or reverse? Explain.

Answer 1

Response in detail in favor of reversal of trial court order is as following:

1. Story I, herein after referred to as uncle, invited Story II, herein after referred to as Nephew, to make an offer to abstain from certain "legally permissible" activities which in a way were Nephew's legal rights which he abstained from under a contract with his uncle thus suffered detriment by giving up his free will to exercise his legal rights.

2. An offer when accepted becomes a promise so there was a promise between Uncle and Nephew to the effect that Nephew would refrain from exercising his legal rights for certain time period and in return Uncle pay shall pay him $5000 which was to consideration thus there was valid contract between Uncle and Nephew.

3. Detriment is not to be taken in literal sense but in terms of giving up once legal rights. It is like renting out once property wherein one person gives up his legal right to use his property in foavor of another person in exchange of money as consideration. In this case also person renting out his property does not suffer any actual detriment but such an agreement is a valid contract in the eye of law and if tenant would not pay the rent then court of law shall evict him from the property.

4. A contract does not have to be necessarily in written form and verbal contracts are also enforceable subject to provisions

In view of the above learned Trial Court has erred in its judgement by agreeing with the estate hence the same is liable to be reversed by Court of appeals.

In lighter vain, what worse detriment a young person can suffer if he is not allowed to enjoy his life as per his wishes