Story Case

Beyle Brothers sent the following offer to Herdly & Co.:

"Jan. 3, 1915.

Gentlemen: "We offer you a price of $1.02 for a carload of wheat. This offer to remain open till noon of January 6th.

Respectfully, (Signed) Beyle BR0S".

Herdly & Co. intended to accept this offer on the morning of January 6th, but on that morning they received the following telegram:

"We revoke our offer of the 3rd.

(Signed) Beyle Bros".

Herdly & Co. admitted that they did not accept the offer but they claim that they would have accepted upon receipt of the offer if Beyle Bros, had not stated that the offer would remain open till noon of the 6th. They sued Beyle Bros, for breach of the promise to keep the offer open until noon of the 6th.

Beyle Bros, defend on the ground that no consideration was given for the promise to keep the offer open, and, therefore, that the promise was not binding. What is your decision?

Exiling Court Case. Bradley Vs. Cook, Volume 7 Connecticut Reports, Page 57; Volume 18 American Decisions, Page 78

Jonathan Clark, an old man, was in indigent circumstances, and unable to provide for himself. Bradley, the plaintiff in this action, furnished him necessities which were reasonably worth the sum of sixty dollars. When Henry Cook, the wealthy and only son of Jonathan, was informed by Bradley of what had been done, he signed and delivered to the latter a writing, in which he acknowledged the debt due by his father to Bradley to be for necessities, and promised to pay for them, provided his father was unable, during his lifetime. Jonathan died, without having paid the debt or any part thereof. Then this action was brought by Bradley against Henry Cook upon his written promise to pay the amount, in case his father did not.

Henry Cook insisted that his promise was useless, so far as its binding effect at law was concerned, because it was not supported by a consideration.

Decision

A son is under no legal duty to pay debts previously contracted by an indigent parent for the latter's necessary support; and his written promise to pay such debts is without consideration. Therefore, it has no binding effect upon the son.

Mr. Justice Doggett said in part: "The contract is not a specialty, though in writing; nor is it governed by the law merchant, applicable to negotiable paper. Were it of the first description, that is, a sealed instrument, by the rules of the common law, the consideration would be locked up and could not be inquired into. A mere written contract is upon the footing of a parol contract and a consideration must be proved. This is an inflexible rule of law, and the Court is not at liberty, if it had the disposition, to subvert it".

Accordingly, judgment was given for Henry Cook, the defendant in this action.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Every contract, not under seal, must be supported by a consideration. Unsealed written contracts are of the same class as oral contracts. They must be supported by a consideration, or they are not legally binding. In Bradley vs. Cook, the Court Case, there was no consideration for the promise of Henry Cook to pay for necessities furnished his father; at least, there was no present consideration; consequently, his promise was without a consideration from the other party and is not enforcible against him. In the Story-Case, the offer of Beyle Brothers to sell wheat, and the promise to keep the offer open for three days, was without consideration; and he was entitled to withdraw his offer at any time before acceptance. Judgment would therefore be given for Beyle Brothers.