Case: Manwill v.

Oyler

Parties: Plaintiff/Respondent - Manwill

Defendant/Appellant - Oyler

Procedural History: Defendants petitioned and obtained leave to bring an

interlocutory appeal (an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before
the trial itself has concluded) to challenge the denial of their motion to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint by a trial court.

Facts: Plaintiff alleged that he made payments on defendant's behalf aggregating

$5,506.20, during the years 1950-1953, and transferred property worth $4,800 in
1954 to defendants. Plaintiff then alleged that defendants orally promised to pay
in July/August 1956 those sums. Any action on these transactions was barred by
the statute of limitations. After defendants filed motion to dismiss, plaintiff
then amended to state that defendants orally promised to pay $5,506.20 in Oct
1957. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and they then submitted an
interlocutory appeal.

Issue: If a property-owner , who has a moral obligation to reimburse someone who

paid for property on their behalf, and years later promised to pay back these
sums, bound in contract to pay back this amount, because there is sufficient
consideration in the moral obligation to pay this sum back?

Holding/Judgment: The court reversed the denied demurrer with directions to

dismiss the action, holding that a mere moral, as distinguished from a legal,
obligation was not sufficient consideration to support a contract.

Reasoning: Each party had to give some legal consideration to the other by
conferring a benefit or suffering a legal detriment. Plaintiff did not allege
facts sufficient to make the alleged oral promise a binding contract.

__________________________________________________________________________________
___

CLASS NOTES
Court says that to gets around statute of limitations by saying an action to
promise to pay a debt must be in writing.
Writing is evidence of person's commitment to the promise, and may get you around
the consideration aspect.

Is there quasi contract?

Material benefit rule - if they received a benefit. Court says he couldn’t expect
to be compensated for it, so it was determined to be a gift (promise to pay was
made AFTER he made the payments).

Cause of action is dismissed.