## Facts

- An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew would refrain until age 21 from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing, and gambling for money.
- The nephew accepted and fully performed by abstaining from the specified lawful activities until he turned 21.
- After the nephew’s 21st birthday, he demanded payment; the uncle acknowledged the nephew had earned the $5,000 and proposed holding the funds with interest for the nephew’s benefit until the nephew was older, which the nephew accepted.
- The uncle died without paying the $5,000.
- The nephew assigned his claim to others; the plaintiff ultimately held the claim as assignee.
- The executor of the uncle’s estate refused to pay, arguing the promise was not supported by consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether a promise to pay money in exchange for the promisee’s forbearance of lawful conduct constitutes sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract.
2. Whether the promise is unenforceable because the forbearance may have benefited the promisee and did not confer a measurable economic benefit on the promisor.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York held that the nephew’s forbearance of lawful conduct at the uncle’s request was valid consideration.
- The court rejected the view that consideration requires a benefit to the promisor or a net harm to the promisee.
- The court concluded the uncle became obligated to pay $5,000 when the nephew fully performed by refraining until age 21.
- The court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s contrary ruling, effectively reinstating judgment for the plaintiff.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration may consist of a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee; either is sufficient.
- A waiver or forbearance of a legal right, undertaken at another party’s request, constitutes legal detriment and thus valid consideration.
- Courts do not evaluate whether the consideration is economically equivalent, advantageous, or morally beneficial; the relevant inquiry is whether the promisee restricted lawful freedom of action in exchange for the promise.
- A unilateral contract is formed when the promisor seeks performance (not a return promise) and the promisee accepts by completing the requested performance.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the uncle’s promise because the nephew’s voluntary surrender of lawful freedoms at the uncle’s request constituted consideration, making the $5,000 promise binding on the uncle’s estate upon the nephew’s full performance.


Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891)