Hamer v. . Sidway Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
tl;dr: An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 to refrain from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21. The court found the nephew’s forbearance of his legal rights was valid consideration, making the promise an enforceable contract, even though the nephew may have benefited from his abstinence.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that forbearance from a legal right constitutes valid consideration, regardless of whether the promisor receives a tangible benefit or the promisee suffers a tangible detriment. It solidifies the “legal detriment” theory of consideration.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William E. Story promised his nephew that if the nephew would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21, the uncle would pay him $5,000. The nephew agreed and fully performed his obligations under the agreement. When the nephew turned 21, he informed his uncle that he had upheld his end of the bargain. The uncle acknowledged the debt in a letter, stating he had the money in a bank and would hold it for the nephew, with interest, until he believed the nephew was capable of managing it. The nephew consented to this arrangement. The nephew later assigned his right to the $5,000 to his wife, who in turn assigned it to the plaintiff, Louisa Hamer. The uncle died without paying the money. The executor of the uncle’s estate, Franklin Sidway, refused to pay the claim, arguing that the original agreement was invalid for lack of consideration because the nephew’s actions were beneficial to himself and did not constitute a detriment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a promisee’s forbearance from engaging in lawful activities sufficient consideration to support an enforceable contract?
Yes. The nephew’s forbearance from his legal right to engage in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a promisee’s forbearance from engaging in lawful activities sufficient consideration to support an enforceable contract?
Conclusion
Hamer v. Sidway is a foundational case in contract law that firmly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the defendant's contention that a contract is invalid unless Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Forbearance from a legal right (e.g., drinking, smoking) is valid consideration