Hamer v. Sidway vs. Mills v. Wyman
A side-by-side comparison of two landmark contracts cases
Hamer v. Sidway
124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) (1891)
Holding
The court held that the nephew's forbearance from activities he had a legal right to engage in constituted valid consideration for the uncle's promise. The court rejected the argument that consideration requires a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee in any practical sense, holding instead that any restriction of legal freedom at the request of another is sufficient consideration.
Doctrine Established
Forbearance as Consideration (Legal Detriment Test)
Mills v. Wyman
20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825) (1825)
Holding
The court held that Seth Wyman's promise was unenforceable because the consideration (the care provided to Levi) was past consideration, having been fully completed before the promise was made. A moral obligation arising from past benefits, no matter how significant, does not constitute legally sufficient consideration to support a promise. The promise was a mere gift promise motivated by gratitude, not a binding contractual obligation.
Doctrine Established
Past Consideration Rule (Moral Obligation Insufficient)
Comparison Analysis
Hamer v. Sidway (1891) and Mills v. Wyman (1825) both involve promises made in recognition of some prior or existing relationship, but they reach different conclusions about whether the promises are supported by sufficient consideration. Hamer held that an uncle's promise to pay his nephew $5,000 if the nephew refrained from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21 was supported by consideration, because the nephew's forbearance from legal activities constituted a legal detriment. Mills held that a father's promise to pay a Good Samaritan who had cared for his sick adult son was not enforceable because the care had already been rendered before the promise was made -- past consideration is not consideration.
The contrast between these cases illuminates the doctrine of consideration with precision. Hamer stands for the principle that consideration exists whenever the promisee incurs a legal detriment (giving up a legal right) at the promisor's request, regardless of whether the promisor received any actual benefit. The nephew gave up his legal right to drink and smoke, which was sufficient. Mills stands for the equally important principle that consideration must be bargained for -- it must be exchanged for the promise, not merely precede it in time. The care provided to the son was not given in exchange for the father's later promise but was rendered independently.
These cases also raise the moral obligation exception. Mills is the classic case denying enforcement of morally motivated promises, while Webb v. McGowin (decided later) represents the minority view that a strong moral obligation arising from material benefit can serve as a substitute for consideration. Students should understand the orthodox rule (Mills) and the minority exception (Webb), as well as the Restatement (Second) Section 86 compromise position that allows enforcement of promises for benefits previously received in limited circumstances.
Similarities
- Both involve gratuitous promises motivated by a pre-existing relationship or moral obligation rather than a traditional commercial exchange
- Both require the court to determine whether sufficient consideration supports the promisor's commitment
- Both are foundational cases for teaching the consideration doctrine in first-year Contracts
- Both involve promises that most people would consider morally binding, raising the question of when moral obligation creates legal obligation
Differences
- Hamer found valid consideration (forbearance at the promisor's request constituted legal detriment), while Mills found no consideration (past acts cannot serve as consideration for a later promise)
- In Hamer, the nephew's forbearance was requested by and exchanged for the uncle's promise (bargained-for exchange), while in Mills, the caretaking occurred before the promise was made (past consideration)
- Hamer involved a bilateral exchange (promise for forbearance), while Mills involved a unilateral promise made after services were already rendered
- The moral claim was arguably stronger in Mills (a father acknowledging a debt of gratitude for life-saving care), yet the legal claim was weaker due to the timing of the promise relative to the detriment
Why This Comparison Matters
Consideration questions almost always appear on Contracts exams. Students must determine whether the promisee's detriment was bargained for (Hamer) or merely preceded the promise in time (Mills). A common exam trick is a fact pattern where someone performs services and the beneficiary later promises to pay -- students must identify this as a past consideration problem under Mills. The sophistication lies in recognizing when the moral obligation exception (Restatement Section 86 / Webb v. McGowin) might apply to modify the strict Mills rule.
More Contracts Comparisons
Hadley v. Baxendale vs. Hawkins v. McGee
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) and Hawkins v. McGee (1929) are both foundational cases on contract damages, but they address different aspects of the remedies framework. Hadley established the foreseeability limitation on consequential damages, holding that a breaching party is liable only for damages that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract formation -- either arising naturally from the breach or within the contemplation of both parties due to special circumstances communicated at formation. Hawkins v. McGee ('the hairy hand case') established the expectation damages measure, holding that the proper remedy for breach puts the plaintiff in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Lucy v. Zehmer vs. Raffles v. Wichelhaus
Lucy v. Zehmer (1954) and Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) are both seminal cases on mutual assent and the role of subjective intent in contract formation, but they reach opposite conclusions about when a valid contract exists. Lucy held that a contract existed for the sale of a farm even though the seller claimed he was joking, because the objective manifestations of intent -- signing a written agreement, discussing terms over an extended period, involving the seller's wife -- indicated a serious transaction. Raffles held that no contract existed for the sale of cotton to arrive on the ship 'Peerless' because there were two ships named Peerless and each party had a different ship in mind, creating a latent ambiguity that prevented mutual assent.
Taylor v. Caldwell vs. Krell v. Henry
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) and Krell v. Henry (1903) are the foundational English cases establishing the doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose, respectively. Taylor held that when a music hall was destroyed by fire before the date of a scheduled concert, the contract was discharged because its performance had become impossible through no fault of either party. The implied condition that the hall would continue to exist failed, excusing both parties from their obligations. Krell extended this reasoning to situations where performance remains physically possible but the entire purpose of the contract has been frustrated by an unforeseen event -- specifically, the cancellation of King Edward VII's coronation procession, which eliminated the reason the defendant had rented an apartment overlooking the parade route.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. vs. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965) and ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996) both address the enforceability of contract terms in consumer transactions where one party has significantly less bargaining power, but they reach contrasting conclusions that reflect different judicial attitudes toward standard-form contracts. Williams held that a cross-collateral clause in a furniture installment contract was potentially unconscionable because of the gross inequality of bargaining power, the buyer's lack of meaningful choice, and the unreasonably favorable terms to the seller. ProCD held that 'shrinkwrap' license terms inside a software box were enforceable even though the buyer could not review them before purchase, reasoning that such layered contracting is a reasonable commercial practice.