Connection lost
Server error
Hamer v. . Sidway Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An uncle promised his nephew $5,000 to refrain from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21. The court found the nephew’s forbearance of his legal rights was valid consideration, making the promise an enforceable contract, even though the nephew may have benefited from his abstinence.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that forbearance from a legal right constitutes valid consideration, regardless of whether the promisor receives a tangible benefit or the promisee suffers a tangible detriment. It solidifies the “legal detriment” theory of consideration.
Hamer v. . Sidway Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William E. Story promised his nephew that if the nephew would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21, the uncle would pay him $5,000. The nephew agreed and fully performed his obligations under the agreement. When the nephew turned 21, he informed his uncle that he had upheld his end of the bargain. The uncle acknowledged the debt in a letter, stating he had the money in a bank and would hold it for the nephew, with interest, until he believed the nephew was capable of managing it. The nephew consented to this arrangement. The nephew later assigned his right to the $5,000 to his wife, who in turn assigned it to the plaintiff, Louisa Hamer. The uncle died without paying the money. The executor of the uncle’s estate, Franklin Sidway, refused to pay the claim, arguing that the original agreement was invalid for lack of consideration because the nephew’s actions were beneficial to himself and did not constitute a detriment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a promisee’s forbearance from engaging in lawful activities sufficient consideration to support an enforceable contract?
Yes. The nephew’s forbearance from his legal right to engage in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a promisee’s forbearance from engaging in lawful activities sufficient consideration to support an enforceable contract?
Conclusion
Hamer v. Sidway is a foundational case in contract law that firmly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the defendant's contention that a contract is invalid unless Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Forbearance from a legal right (e.g., drinking, smoking) is valid consideration