Consideration & Reliance

Question 1

Hamer v. Sidway (N.Y. 1891) — held?

Accepted Answer

Giving up a legal right (the nephew refrained from drinking, smoking and gambling until 21) is valid consideration, even if it benefits the promisee. (Source: Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (1891))

Question 2

Mills v. Wyman (Mass. 1825) — held?

Accepted Answer

A moral obligation alone (a father's promise to pay for care already given to his adult son) is not consideration for a later promise. (Source: Mills v. Wyman, 20 Mass. 207 (1825))

Question 3

Webb v. McGowin (Ala. Ct. App. 1935) — held?

Accepted Answer

Material benefit rule: a promise to pay for a substantial benefit already received (the plaintiff was crippled saving McGowin's life) was enforceable. (Source: Webb v. McGowin, 27 Ala. App. 82 (1935))

Question 4

Ricketts v. Scothorn (Neb. 1898) — held?

Accepted Answer

A grandfather's promissory note was enforced by estoppel because the granddaughter quit her job in reliance on it — an early promissory estoppel case. (Source: Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51 (1898))

Question 5

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores (Wis. 1965) — held?

Accepted Answer

Promissory estoppel applied to assurances made during negotiations, even though the promise was not definite enough to be an offer; reliance damages were awarded. (Source: Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, 26 Wis. 2d 683 (1965))

1.Hamer v. Sidway (N.Y. 1891) — held?

2.Mills v. Wyman (Mass. 1825) — held?

3.Webb v. McGowin (Ala. Ct. App. 1935) — held?

4.Ricketts v. Scothorn (Neb. 1898) — held?

5.Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores (Wis. 1965) — held?