--- title: "Hamer v. Sidway" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/hamer-v-sidway --- # Hamer v. Sidway Hamer v. Sidway established that forbearance from a legal right constitutes valid consideration for a contract, even if the forbearance benefits the promisor or the promisee is not actually harmed by the restraint. The case broadened the understanding of consideration by moving away from the requirement that consideration must involve a detriment in the common sense of harm or loss. It remains a foundational case on the doctrine of consideration in American contract law. ## Citation 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) ## Year 1891 ## Court New York Court of Appeals ## Facts William E. Story, Sr. promised his nephew, William E. Story II, that if the nephew refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned twenty-one, the uncle would pay him $5,000. The nephew fully performed by abstaining from all the specified activities until his twenty-first birthday. The uncle acknowledged the nephew's performance in a letter and stated the money would be held with interest, but died before paying. Louisa Hamer, an assignee of the nephew's claim, brought suit against the uncle's executor, Franklin Sidway. ## Procedural History The trial court found for the plaintiff. The General Term of the Supreme Court reversed, holding there was no consideration. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the General Term and reinstated the judgment for the plaintiff. ## Issue Whether the nephew's forbearance from engaging in legal activities constituted sufficient consideration to enforce the uncle's promise to pay $5,000. ## 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. ## Reasoning Judge Parker, writing for the court, explained that consideration does not require that the promisee suffer a tangible loss or that the promisor receive a tangible benefit. Rather, it is sufficient that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise. The nephew had a legal right to drink, smoke, swear, and gamble, and by abandoning those rights for a period of years at his uncle's request, he restricted his lawful freedom of action. This forbearance constituted a legal detriment sufficient to support the uncle's promise, regardless of whether the abstinence actually benefited the nephew's health or character. ## Impact Hamer v. Sidway became a cornerstone case in the doctrine of consideration, establishing that legal detriment in the bargain sense is sufficient without regard to actual loss or harm. The case influenced the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which defines consideration as a performance or return promise that is bargained for. It is regularly cited in cases involving forbearance agreements, family promises, and the adequacy of consideration. ## Key Quotes - Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present, or limits his legal freedom of action in the future, as an inducement for the promise of the first. - Courts will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of any substantial value to any one. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him. - Now, applying this rule to the facts before us, the promisee used tobacco, occasionally drank liquor, and he had a legal right to do so. That right he abandoned for a period of years upon the strength of the promise of the testator that for such forbearance he would give him $5,000. ## Related Cases - mills-v-wyman - webb-v-mcgowin - ricketts-v-scothorn - angel-v-murray - alaska-packers-association-v-domenico ## Exam Relevance Hamer v. Sidway is a classic exam case testing whether students understand that consideration requires legal detriment (giving up a legal right) rather than actual practical harm or benefit. Exam questions often present promises conditioned on forbearance and ask whether valid consideration exists. Students should be prepared to distinguish between bargained-for consideration and mere conditions or gifts. ## Study Tips - Understand the legal detriment test: consideration exists when the promisee gives up a legal right or restricts legal freedom, regardless of whether the promisee actually benefits or suffers. - Distinguish this case from gift promises: the uncle's promise was not a gift because it was conditioned on the nephew's forbearance, which the uncle requested as part of a bargain. - Connect this case to the Restatement (Second) Section 71, which defines consideration as a bargained-for exchange of a performance or return promise. - Use this case to contrast with cases where courts find no consideration, such as past consideration (Mills v. Wyman) or illusory promises. ## Doctrine Established Forbearance as Consideration (Legal Detriment Test) --- Source: [Hamer v. Sidway — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/hamer-v-sidway)