## Facts

- A landowner conducting an auction of residential lots advertised that every white person over sixteen attending the auction would have an equal chance to win a new Ford automobile, whether or not the person bid or bought.
- At the auction, attendees received slips of paper, wrote their names, and placed the slips into a box held by the auctioneer for a random drawing.
- The plaintiff attended the auction in response to the advertisement, placed her name in the box, and her name was drawn as the winner of the automobile.
- The defendant refused to deliver the automobile or pay its value.
- The plaintiff sued to recover $461, alleged to be the automobile’s value.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s attendance at the auction, induced by the promotional promise, supplied consideration sufficient to make the defendant’s promise enforceable as a contract.
2. Whether the promotional drawing constituted an illegal lottery, rendering the promise to award the automobile void and unenforceable.

## Decision

- The trial court sustained the defendant’s general demurrer and entered judgment for the defendant.
- The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s attendance at the auction was sufficient consideration to support the defendant’s promise as a unilateral contract.
- The appellate court nevertheless held that the scheme constituted an illegal lottery because it involved a prize, chance, and a “price” (the attendee’s presence), and thus the promise was unenforceable.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendant on the ground of illegality.

## Legal Principles

- An executory promise that appears gratuitous may be enforceable if the promisor requested an act and the promisee performed that act in response; performance supplies consideration in a unilateral contract.
- A valid gift requires execution (including delivery); an unperformed promise to make a gift is generally unenforceable absent consideration.
- A lottery consists of prize, chance, and consideration (a “price” paid for the chance); consideration may be non-monetary if it is demanded as the condition for participation.
- Courts will not enforce an agreement that is illegal or contrary to public policy, even if traditional contract elements (offer, acceptance, consideration) are otherwise satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that the defendant’s promotional offer was supported by consideration because the plaintiff attended the auction in response to the promise, but it refused to enforce the promise because the prize drawing was an illegal lottery, so the plaintiff could not recover the automobile’s value.


Maughs v. Porter, 157 Va. 415, 161 S.E. 242 (1931)