Facts: William Story wanted his nephew to grow up healthy and prosperous. In 1869, he promised the 15-year-old boy $5,000 if the lad would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money, until his twenty-first birthday. The nephew had a legal right to do those things. The nephew agreed and kept his word. When he reached his twenty-first birthday, the nephew notified his uncle that he had honored the agreement. The uncle congratulated the young man and promised to give him the money, but said he would wait a few more years before handing over the cash, until the nephew was more mature. The uncle died and his estate refused to pay. Hamer, to whom the nephew had transferred his rights, sued. The estate argued that the nephew had given no consideration for the uncle’s promise. The trial court found for the plaintiff and the uncle’s estate appealed.

Questions:

1. Did the nephew give consideration for the uncle’s promise?

2. Before we discuss the contracts issue, can you explain how Hamer wound up as the plaintiff?

3. Why did the uncle’s estate deny payment to Hamer?

4. How did the estate characterize this transaction?

5. What was Hamer’s argument?

6. The uncle received no benefit from the nephew’s promise. Why does the court hold that the nephew gave consideration?

7. The nephew gave up activities that were bad for his health. What detriment did he suffer?

8. Which of these concepts applies here?

9. Still, how is the nephew’s detriment a benefit to the uncle?

10. Would a similar exchange of promises today between an adult and 15-year-old also result in a contract?