Case
Hamer v. Sidway
Answer: Hamer v. Sidway. In this 1891 New York Court of Appeals decision, the court held that a nephew’s forbearance from otherwise lawful conduct at his uncle’s request was valid consideration supporting the uncle’s $5,000 promise. The case anchors the benefit–detriment account of consideration and the rule that courts do not assess adequacy.
Rule to remember
Hamer v. Sidway (N.Y. 1891) is the classic consideration case: a nephew’s forbearance from lawful conduct, undertaken at his uncle’s request and in exchange for $5,000, constituted sufficient consideration even though the uncle received no tangible benefit.
Key elements and checks
- Promise conditioned on the promisee’s forbearance of lawful rights.
- Forbearance or other legal detriment is bargained for and undertaken in exchange for the promise.
- Promisor need not receive a benefit; legal detriment to the promisee suffices.
- Adequacy of consideration is generally irrelevant (peppercorn principle).
- Forbearance of already unlawful conduct is not consideration.
- Promissory estoppel is distinct and applies when consideration is absent but reliance is proven.
In the source’s words
“Benefit-Detriment Theory: Consideration exists when the promise results in a legal benefit to the promisor or a legal detriment to the promisee.”
contract | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
“Forbearance is the intentional action of abstaining from doing something.”
forbearance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
State variation: Most jurisdictions accept forbearance as valid consideration, though many articulate the doctrine through bargain theory rather than benefit–detriment phrasing. All require that the forbearance be of a legal right; abstaining from illegal acts cannot supply consideration.