Hamer v. Sidway Relevant Facts: Pl obtained through assignment originating from W. Story 2d, nephew of the deceased. The executor rejected the claim of the Pl and the action began. During the 50th wedding anniversary of Samuel Story, W. Story Sr. promised his nephew $5000 if he would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he became 21 years old. The nephew fully performed and wrote his uncle requesting the money. The uncle wrote back that he would pay him, but subsequently died without paying him. Legal Issue(s): Whether the uncle became indebted to the nephew on his 21st birthday by way and through a legal contract? Court’s Holding: Yes- Bilateral K. Procedure: Appeal from an order of S. Ct. reversing county ct. granting PL judgment where Pl presented a claim to executor of William Story Sr. for $5000 plus interest. County ct. order upheld with costs from the estate. Law or Rule(s): A waiver of any legal right at the request of another is a sufficient consideration for a promise. The exchange of one valuable thing for another. Something promised done, forborne, or suffered by a party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him. Court Rationale: Consideration means only means that one party is profiting as the other abandons some legal right in the present, or limits his legal freedom of action in the future, as an inducement for the promise of the first person. The promisee used tobacco, occasionally drank liquor, and he had a legal right to do so. That right he abandoned for the period of years in reliance of that such a forbearance would give him $5000. It is sufficient that he restricted his lawful freedom of action within certain prescribed limits upon the faith of his uncle’s agreement. Plaintiff’s Argument: Pl surrendered his right caused by the promise, fully performed, with the right to contract, in exchange for $5000. Defendant’s Argument: There was no consideration, the nephew was neither harmed nor benefitted, his acts, independent of the uncle’s promise, were voluntary. Mesne - intervening assignments; A to B; then to C; then to D (B,C,D would be mesne) Quid pro Quo - something for something.
Harris v. Time Subject: Compensatory damages Facts: The Gnaizda family received a letter from Time that showed part of a sentence through the window envelope. The sentence said "I'll give you this versatile new calculator watch for free just for opening this envelope." After opening the envelope, it was discovered, the sentence went on to say (in small print, and not viewable through the window of the envelope) the certificate to subscribe to the magazine had to be mailed in. Before beginning litigation, Gnaizda demanded that Time send a calculator watch without requiring a subscription. No watch was sent. Procedure: Harris, Gnaizda, and Baker appeal from a judgement of dismissal of this class action lawsuit. Gnaizda, an attorney, launched a $15,000,000 lawsuit against time for breach of contract, three causes of action for unfair advertising, and four causes of action for promissory estoppel and fraud. Court sustained demurrer by Time as to the causes of action for breach of contract, but overruled the demurrer as to cause of actionfor unfail advertising. Issue: Did the court err when it sustained Time's demurrer as to a cause of action for breach of contract and granted summary judgment as to a causes of action for unfair advertising? Rule: Although there may be claims that are partially technically correct, when the "de minimis" theory is met, the technical correctness is of little consequence. Only in circumstances of actual detriment should a court intrude upon the exercise of what senders of junk mail might call commercial free speech and the recipients might call intrusive harassment. Holding: The court was correct in sustaining the demurrer and granting summary judgement. Rationale:
Advertisement did constitute an offer. Technically, the act of opening the envelope did constitute adequate consideration. Only Gnaizda gave Time notice of performance. This is not the case of the rich trampling the poor. A departure from this precedent should only occur under compelling circumstances, which this is not. Although there are some technically valid points, this is a clear example or de "minimis non curat lex" in the extreme. Law disregards trifles. This lawsuit is an absurd waste of the court's resources. It is not a use for which our legal system is designed. Policy/Notes: It is Congress's place, not the courts, to eliminate intrusions into our lives such as this. Offer: calls for the performance of a specific act without further communication and leaves nothing for further negotiation. Consideration: any bargained-for act or forbearance will constitute adequate consideration for a unilateral contract.