a) Before we discuss the contracts issue, can you explain how Hamer wound up as the plaintiff?
b) Why did the uncle's estate deny payment to Hamer?
c) How did the estate characterize this transaction?
d) What was Hamer's argument?
e) The uncle received no benefit from the nephew's promise. Why does the court hold that the nephew gave consideration?
f) The nephew gave up activities that were bad for his health. What detriment did he suffer?
g) Which of these concepts applies here?
h) Still, how is the nephew's detriment a benefit to the uncle?
i) Would a similar exchange of promises today between an adult and 15-year-old also result in a contract?