Hamer v. Sidway

Hamer v. Sidway - Judy Duong Prof. Brierton Commercial Law...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Judy Duong Prof. Brierton Commercial Law October 9, 2007 Hamer v. Sidway Background At a family gathering, William E. Sr. promised to pay William E. II, his nephew, $5,000 if he refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards until he reaches the age of twenty-one. The nephew agreed and fully performed on his part of the bargain, and upon turning twenty-one he wrote to his uncle that he has refrained from those acts. His uncle replied back saying that he was glad and had left the money in the bank including interest that have grown over the years for his nephew, but it was to remain in his uncle’s bank. The uncle died twelve years later and the executor of the uncle’s estate (Sidway) claims that there had been no valid consideration and William E. II has no rights to the $5,000 and the interest. Legal Issue: was there a valid consideration under the Law? Consideration requires two elements of legal value and that there must be a bargained-for
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/13/2008 for the course BUSI 157 taught by Professor Brierton during the Fall '07 term at Pacific.

Page1 / 2

Hamer v. Sidway - Judy Duong Prof. Brierton Commercial Law...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online