Connection lost
Server error
Hamer v. . Sidway Case Brief
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 uncle’s promise an enforceable contract.
Legal Significance: Establishes that forbearance from a legal right constitutes sufficient legal detriment to serve as valid consideration for a contract, regardless of whether the forbearance actually benefits the promisee.
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 he 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. Upon turning 21, the nephew wrote to his uncle requesting payment. The uncle acknowledged the debt in a letter, confirming the promise and stating he would hold the money with interest until he felt the nephew was capable of managing it. The nephew consented to this arrangement. The uncle died without paying the sum. The nephew’s interest was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, Louisa Hamer. The executor of the uncle’s estate, Franklin Sidway, refused to pay, arguing that the original promise was unenforceable for lack of consideration because the nephew’s compliance was beneficial to his own health and well-being, not a detriment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a promisee’s forbearance from permissible legal conduct sufficient consideration to form a valid and enforceable contract?
Yes. The court held that the nephew’s forbearance from engaging in activities 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
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 permissible legal conduct sufficient consideration to form a valid and enforceable contract?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in contract law, establishing that a 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.
Legal Rule
A valuable consideration may consist of either some right, interest, profit, or 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the definition of consideration, specifically rejecting 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 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. D
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Forbearance from a legal right (e.g., drinking, smoking) is valid consideration