Question

Question: Business Law (Topic Consideration)

1.) In the landmark case, Hamer v. Sidway, what were the promises exchanged between the uncle and the nephew? Did the nephew live up to his promise? If so, why didn’t he receive anything from the uncle? What did the nephew give up in exchange for his uncle’s promise? According to the court, why was this sufficient? If this case were to occur today, would the outcome be the same? Why or why not?

2. Read the “You Be The Judge” section of the chapter (Kim v. Son). If you were the judge, how would you rule? Why? Explain.

3. In the Landmark Case, Alaska Packers’ Assoc. v. Domenico, why didn’t the court enforce the APA’s agreement to pay the workers double the original contract amount? What was the legal reason?

4. Briefly explain, what is an accord and satisfaction? In Henches v. Taylor, did Taylor’s check create an accord and satisfaction? Why or why not? What should Henches have done in this case if he didn’t want to create an accord and satisfaction?

Answer 1

1 )In the landmark case Hamer v Sidway the promises exchanged between the uncle and nephew were as follows:

• The uncle promised his nephew $5000 if he refrained from drinking, consuming tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21 years.

Yes , The nephew lived up to the promise of refraining from drinks, smoking , tobacco, palying cards , billiards etc.

The nephew didn’t receive anything from the uncle as the uncle died before giving the nephew his money.

The nephew lived up to the promise of refraining from or gave up drinks, smoking , tobacco, palying cards , billiards etc in

Uncle's estate argued contended the contract was without consideration because refraining from these activities actually benefited P.

According to the Court a promise to give up smoking may be a benefit to the promisee's health, but it is also a legal detriment and sufficient consideration to support a contract. The courts will not be interested in whether the thing which forms the consideration is in fact beneficial to the promisee because it doesn’t question the adequacy of consideration. Any damage, or suspension, or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain the promise.

Yes the outcome would be the same as legal detriment is sufficient consideration.