## Facts

- Amelia C. Plate, a 12-year-old orphan, went to live with her sister and brother-in-law, George Durst, and worked in their household and Durst’s store.
- For several years Plate rendered domestic and store services without requesting wages.
- Durst made repeated promises that if Plate remained with the family for a total of ten years, he would pay her a substantial sum of money and give her a diamond ring, including statements that she would receive the benefits when she married.
- Plate continued working in reliance on these promises, believing Durst was serious.
- After a family dispute, Durst ordered Plate to leave and refused to pay, later asserting his promises were made in jest.
- Plate sued for breach of contract; a jury returned a verdict for Plate, and Durst appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether statements characterized by the promisor as “jokes” can form an enforceable contract when a reasonable promisee would understand them as serious promises.
2. Whether the promisee’s continued performance of valuable services, induced by the promise, supplies consideration supporting enforcement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the judgment for Plate.
- The court held the promises were enforceable because Plate reasonably understood them as serious and rendered valuable services in reliance on them.
- The court declined to overturn the jury’s factual determination that the promises were made and were reasonably taken as genuine commitments.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation and liability turn on objective manifestations of intent; a promisor may be bound by words that reasonably communicate a serious promise, regardless of undisclosed subjective intent.
- A promisor cannot avoid liability by later claiming to have been “only joking” when the promisee reasonably relied on the promise and provided valuable services.
- Continued services rendered in reliance on a promise can constitute consideration, supporting enforcement of promised compensation.
- When credibility and reasonable understanding of statements are fact questions, appellate review generally defers to the jury absent legal error.

## Conclusion

The court enforced Durst’s promise because his words and conduct could reasonably be taken as a serious offer that induced Plate’s continued, valuable services; a later claim that the promise was made in jest did not defeat contract liability.


Plate v. Durst, 24 S.E. 580 (W. Va. 1896)