This Court of Appeals of New York and was argued on the 24th of February, 1981. The decision in the case was taken in 1891 by the New York Court of Appeal (the highest court of the state), New York, USA. The case of Hamer vs Sidway is one of the important cases in the American treaty. A treaty in which it has been established that by voluntarily refraining from its legal rights under promises of future benefits made by other parties may constitute a valid consideration. In addition, contracts that are beneficial to only one party (unilateral contracts) are valid under the laws of New York. Moreover, the Hamer v Sidway case is very readable to students of the first courses of American law schools.
Hamer v Sidway brief: In this case, it is considered that the uncle promised his nephew a monetary reward of $ 5,000, in exchange for his abstinence from drinking, smoking, and gambling until he turns twenty-one. Then the nephew fulfilled his promise, but his uncle postponed the issue of money. Hamer filed a lawsuit against the Executor since his uncle died without paying the money. The plaintiff sued the Executor for $ 5,000 and interest on 6 February 1875. This claim was disallowed by the executor.
Hamer v Sidway Case Brief Facts
In this case, the plaintiff is Hamer who received several destinations that were rewarded at a rate of $ 5,000 and interest from William E. Story II (Story). The Story’s instructions were based on the money that he was to receive under certain conditions from his uncle, William E. Story, the eldest. At the age of 8-10 years, uncle Story promised him that he would pay him $ 5,000 when he turned twenty-one. However, he needed to fulfill this promise, namely, to abstain from “drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money” until he reached adulthood.
Thus, Story agreed and unswervingly fulfilled this promise by abstaining from these things to his on the twenty-first birthday, in the meantime, he wrote to his uncle that he had made a firm commitment, and his uncle answered that he deserved $ 5,000 and at the moment they are in the bank. Although, he does not intend to pay him this amount until he will be sure that Story can properly dispose of them. Uncle Story also indicated in his letter that the money that he had prepared for his nephew would be interested. The reward for the Story stayed in the bank. The nephew absolutely agreed with the opinion of his uncle and agreed that the money was at the disposal of his uncle until he became older. Furthermore, the plaintiff's uncle died in 1887 without paying him the promised amount. this claim was brought by Hamer to Sidway (defendant), the Executor, who had the right to dispose of the property of uncle Story.
Even so, the Executor rejected this claim, and eventually, he was forced to sue the State Court of New York in the hope of achieving the promise. In this case, the plaintiff waived his legal right to use tobacco at the demand of his uncle in exchange for his promise to pay him 5,000 dollars, on this basis, there was enough attention to ensure the execution of the contract. In the upshot, the trial court supported the promise, although the appellate court overturned it. Hamer had to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York. In turn, the New York Court of Appeal decided that the Hamer v. Sidway is tolerance of a legal right is an adequate consideration that is valid for the conclusion of a compulsory contract.