## Facts

- In 1869 William E Story promised his nephew, William E Story II, US\$5,000 if the nephew abstained from alcohol, tobacco, swearing, and gambling until his twenty-first birthday.
- The nephew expressly accepted the offer and refrained from each activity for more than six years, completing performance on 26 February 1875.
- Upon turning twenty-one he notified his uncle of full performance; the uncle acknowledged this and said payment would be made at a convenient time.
- The uncle died without paying; his executor, Franklin Sidway, refused to honour the promise, arguing that it lacked consideration.
- The estate contended the abstention benefited only the nephew’s health and morals and conferred no economic gain on the uncle, rendering the promise gratuitous.

## Issues

1. Whether voluntary forbearance from lawful conduct, undertaken at the promisor’s request, amounts to valuable consideration.
2. Whether consideration must confer an economic benefit on the promisor or impose financial detriment on the promisee, or whether surrender of a legal right alone suffices.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals held that the nephew’s complete abstention supplied adequate consideration and affirmed judgment against the executor.
- The decisive element was the nephew’s relinquishment of legal rights he was otherwise free to exercise, done at the uncle’s request in exchange for the promise.
- Any incidental improvement to the nephew’s health or morals was irrelevant; the legal detriment of foregoing those rights satisfied the requirement of consideration.
- By fully performing before any revocation, the nephew accepted the unilateral offer, creating a binding contract enforceable against the uncle’s estate.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration exists where the promisee confers a benefit on the promisor or incurs a legal detriment at the promisor’s behest.
- A legal detriment includes refraining from actions one is legally entitled to undertake, even if the restraint incidentally benefits the promisee.
- Courts focus on the presence of a bargained-for exchange rather than the adequacy or economic equivalence of the consideration.
- Genuine, negotiated forbearance constitutes valid consideration; only nominal or illusory promises fail to create contractual obligations.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that the nephew’s voluntary surrender of lawful freedoms, performed in reliance on his uncle’s promise, provided sufficient consideration; accordingly, the uncle’s estate was obliged to pay the agreed US\$5,000.


Hamer v Sidway (1891) 124 NY 538 (NY Ct App)