Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Complications and Quiz | Uncle's Promises | Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 1
Photo by Alexander Schimmeck on Unsplash
September 8, 2020
Contract Law: From
Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)
Unit 1 | Complications and Quiz | Uncle’s Promises | Uncle’s Promise
Challenge Part 1
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial
Professor of Law:
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Complications and Quiz – Uncle’s Promises – Uncle’s Promise Challenge Part 1 hyperlink: My Rewritten Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 1 Lecture Notes Hyperlink
Professor Fried wants to know, if we are ready for our next complicated case in scientific law application analyzes? Well, here is our next complicated case example challenge.
This case derived from a real litigation and, the Hamer verses Sidway case’s docket number is 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891). However, Professor Fried has modified some of the Hamer verses Sidway case litigation original version actual events for the sole purposes in teaching our online course in which, this case had actually occurred in 1891.
In the Hamer verses Sidway case was about Sidway (the Defendant) who is the rich uncle and, Sidway (the Defendant) [the uncle]) who is very fond of Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]). And, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle] thinks Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) who is in his late adolescent years were hanging around an acquiescences who[m] were bad company that influences him [his nephew] into illegal and immoral activities from Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) perspective or observations. And, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) had decided to make a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) in a coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer because Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) thinks Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) needed to get his act together and, he [the nephew] should get more serious about his academic performances for representing their family name and, he [the nephew] should adapt to a more positive lifestyle outlook about his future. So, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) had made a coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) in which, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) will give to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) a quarter of a million dollars or two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) when Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) reaches the age of twenty-one years old. If Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) abide by Sidway’s (the Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) terms and conditions within the next few years before Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) twenty first birthday if are as follows:
1. Hamer (the Plaintiff [his
nephew]) does not drink any alcoholic beverages such as, gin or whiskey;
2. Hamer (the Plaintiff [his
nephew]) does not use any illegal drugs or controlled substances such as, marijuana,
MDMA or prescription opioids;
3. Hamer (the Plaintiff [his
nephew]) does not speak any vulgar or profanity languages; and
4. Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) does not do any gambling,
than Hamer (the Plaintiff [the nephew]) will receive as promise on
his twenty first
birthday two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) from Sidway (the
Defendant [the uncle]).
[1]
Now, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) had reached his twenty first
birthday a few year later and, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) was excited about
his accomplishment in achieving Sidway’s (the Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) terms
and conditions goals. Meanwhile, the good hearted Sidway (the Defendant [the
uncle]) had died soon after, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) had reached his
twenty first birthday. And, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew] was not part of Sidway
(the Defendant [the uncle]) last will and testament legal documentation, as one
(1) of his co-heirs for consideration to receive from Sidway (the Defendant
[the uncle]) estate two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) payment,
as promised to him [the nephew]. In which, Sidway’s (the Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) estate
had been legally transferred to Sidway’s (the Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) wife.
So, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) had sued against Sidway (the Defendant
[the uncle]) estate’s executor[s] for Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) bargain offer contract promise fulfillment
in the amount of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) payment. Although,
Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) had attended to complete his coordinated bargain-for-exchanges
offer promise contract fulfillment
with Hamer (the
Plaintiff [his nephew]) to give him [his nephew] in an
intrinsic value in type of monetary
currencies that involved Sidway (the Defendant
[the uncle]) offers exchange of two-hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000) payment to his nephew [Hamer] than Sidway (the
Defendant [the uncle]) suddenly
died of natural causes without leaving Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) the amount offered, as a promise contract. And, Sidway’s (the
Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) attorneys were so heartless, his [the uncle]
attorney refuses to give Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) his uncle [Sidway] payment
of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), as a contract promised to him [the nephew].
[1]
And, why will Sidway’s (the Defendant’s [the uncle’s]) attorneys denied Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) his uncle’s contract promise of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) paid from Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) estate?
Well, after, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) death his coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer promise contract fulfillment made to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) had automatically been revoked, cancelled rescinded, terminated or dismissed his [the uncle] real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments contract made to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]). After, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) death had over-ridden his contract promise to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) has been reset or default to a promise to make a gift principle from Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) estate and, the United States’ laws and statutes does not enforce a promise to make a gift.
How interesting, I know.
So, if you want to make a gift to someone than make your gift. Once you have made your gifts from our scientific law application cases analyzes that we had already studied such as, you have handed over a quarter of a million dollars or two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) payment, or you have handed over the silver watch, or you have handed over the house. Well, those promises to make a gift are fine because you have transferred over those items in a unit of measurements of types of an intrinsic values, as a promise gift.
You cannot sue a person who promise to make a gift and [or], if both parties have a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments contract offers with one (1) another than the one (1) party dies than the contract offer which he or she had made is automatically revoked, cancelled rescinded, terminated or dismissed to the other party. Also, the one-party death reset or default his or her contract offer, as a promise to make a gift.
Well, do you know what happened in this case? Do you know who won?
Here is the original Hamer verses Sidway legal case.
Law School Case
Brief
Hamer v.
Sidway - 11 N.Y.S. 182 (Sup. Ct. 1890)
RULE:
Only a
valuable consideration upholds an executory contract. The consideration must be
something of value--something either beneficial to one party or disadvantageous
to the other, in a pecuniary sense.
FACTS:
The
testator and his nephew, William E. Story were attending the golden wedding of
the father of the testator, when he said to William: "Willie, I am going
to make you a proposition. If you will not drink any liquor, will not smoke,
will not play cards or billiards until you are 21, I will give you $ 5,000 that
day. Of course, if you want to play for fun, that I don't consider playing
cards." William agreed. When the testator passed, his nephew sought to
claim the $ 5,000. The circuit court held that the testator's inter
vivos promise to give his nephew money for abstaining from enumerated bad
habits until he became an adult constituted a binding contract, and that the
nephew was entitled her to those funds. On appeal, appellant beneficiary argued
that there had been simply a promise by the testator to make his nephew a
gift of the sum of $ 5,000 when he became 21 years of age and had refrained
from the activities.
ISSUE:
Did the
proposition between a testator and his nephew, where the latter agreed to
refrain from tobacco and alcohol, form a legal and binding contract between the
parties sufficient to uphold the recovery by the nephew?
ANSWER:
No
CONCLUSION:
The
Supreme Court of New York reversed that judgment and granted a new trial,
finding that what occurred between the parties was not intended as a legal and
binding contract. The court reasoned that the testator merely promised to
"give" his nephew the money in return for abstaining from bad habits,
and that the record did not show that the nephew provided sufficient
consideration to allow the claimant to enforce that promise. The court also
held that the correspondence between the testator and the nephew showed that
the testator did not consider the promise to have created a legal liability,
and that the failure to deliver that gift invalidated it. The court also found
that no trust existed because none was ever declared.
(Procedural
note: In the New York state court system, the Supreme Court is an appellate
court. The Court of Appeals of New York is the state's highest court. This case
will later be overturned on appeal to the highest court in a landmark contracts
law decision, Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538).[2]
[1]
Charles Fried, edX, Unit 1 – Complications and
Quiz – Uncle’s Promise – Uncle’s Promise Challenge Part 1,
[2]
New York state court, Supreme Court. Hamer v.
Sidway. 21 February 1891. Lexis Nexis,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-hamer-v-sidway.
Comments