Story Case

Farry Shoen wanted his nephew, who was attending college, to refrain from playing football and made him the following offer:

"Oct. 1, 1914. If my nephew, Kermit Shoen, will promise to refrain from playing football I will defray his expenses to the San Francisco "World's Fair in 1915.

(Signed) Farry Shoen".

Kermit refrained from playing football in accordance with his promise. On January 1, Kermit inherited a large fortune, and his uncle refused to pay the expense of the World's Fair trip on the ground that the contract was void for lack of consideration. The nephew brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Can he recover?

Ruling Court Case No. 1. Talbott Vs. Stemmons, Volume 89 Kentucky Reports, Page 222; Volume 25 American State Reports, Page 531

Mrs. Sallie D. Stemmons was the step-grandmother of Albert Talbott, who is the plaintiff in this action. Albert was addicted to the smoking habit. This habit troubled his grandmother very much, and after several fruitless attempts to persuade him to abandon it, she made the following written agreement with him:

"April 26, 1880.

I do promise and bind myself to give my grandson, Albert Talbott, five hundred dollars at my death, if he will never take another chew of tobacco, or smoke another cigar during my life, from this date up to my death; and if he breaks this pledge, he is to refund double the amount to his mother.

Albert Talbott, Sallie D. Stemmons".

Albert refrained from the use of tobacco in any form during the life of his grandmother; and after her death demanded the five hundred dollars from her representative; the latter refused to pay the money. Thereupon, Albert brought this action to recover the amount.

It was contended by Stemmons, the defendant, that the promise of the grandmother never became legally binding, because it was not supported by a valuable consideration.

Decision

It is not necessary that the consideration of a contract shall be money; nor is it necessary that the consideration shall be such that it may be measured in money's worth. Any right, relinquished by the promisee, constitutes a valuable consideration, whether it was beneficial to him or not, and it makes binding the promise of his grandmother, made before her death.

Mr. Justice Pryor said in part: "The right to enjoy the use of tobacco was a right that belonged to the grandson, and not forbidden by law. The abandonment of its use may have saved him money or contributed to his health; nevertheless, the surrender of that right caused the promise, and having the right to contract with reference to the subject matter, the abandonment of the use was a sufficient consideration to uphold the promise of grandmother".

Therefore, judgment was given for Albert Talbott in this action.

Ruling Court Case No. 2. John Devecmon Vs. Alexander Shaw, Volume 69 Maryland Reports, Page 199; Volume 9 American State Reports, Page 422

John Devecmon, a nephew of John Combs, deceased, had lived with his uncle, and worked for him as a clerk in his business. In the early part of the year 1878, the uncle, who was very fond of the boy, offered to pay all the expenses if the nephew would take a trip through Europe. The trip was purely recreational, and had no connection whatsoever with the business of the uncle. The nephew, relying upon the promise that he should be reimbursed for the expenses incurred while abroad, made ready and started on the journey. While abroad, his uncle died. When he returned, he demanded of Shaw, the personal representative of his uncle, money sufficient to cover his expenses incurred while abroad, in accordance with the promise of his uncle. The request was denied by Shaw. Thereupon, John Devecmon brought this action to recover the same.

It was insisted by Shaw that the promise of the uncle was not binding, because there was no consideration; the travels of the nephew were not necessarily a detriment to him; very likely they were an advantage; and certainly, insisted Shaw, the trip conferred no benefit upon the uncle.

Decision

Any act performed by one person, whether or not it is detrimental to him, will constitute a valuable consideration for the promise of another, provided it was the right of the person to perform or withhold the performance of the act, as he chose. In this case, the nephew was under no obligation to go to Europe, although the trip very likely benefited him. Nevertheless, the act constitutes a valuable consideration for the promise of the uncle. Therefore, that promise is legally binding, and the nephew is entitled to recover from Shaw, money sufficient to cover his expenses incurred in making the trip.

Accordingly, judgment was given for John Devec-mon in this action.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The law does not designate the kind of consideration which is necessary. It is evident, therefore, that the consideration need not be in money, nor need it be something which may be measured in terms of money. The doing of any act, which the doer is not legally bound to do, or the refraining from doing of any act, which the doer might legally do, constitutes a consideration sufficient to create a legally binding contract. This is well illustrated by the Court Case of Talbott vs. Stemmons; there, the grandson was under no legal duty to refrain from using tobacco, even though its discontinuance might, as a matter of fact, confer a benefit upon him; he was entitled to use tobacco if he desired, and his abstinence was a sufficient consideration to make binding the promise of his grandmother to pay him $500. The same thing is true in the Story Case - Kermit was under no legal obligation to refrain from playing football. In fact, his sacrifice of the game may have been beneficial to him. But his promise to refrain, was a sufficient consideration to make binding the agreement of his uncle to pay the expense of the World's Fair trip and the nephew is entitled to recover.