Case: Hamer v.

Sidway (1891)
The Fact : The HAMER VS. SIDWAY case, formally known as Hamer v. SIDWAY, is a landmark
legal case that took place in the late 19th century in the state of New York, United States. It
revolves around contract law and the concept of consideration.

The case involves two main parties: William E. Story, the uncle, and William E. Hamer, the
nephew. In 1869, when Hamer was just 15 years old, his uncle promised him a substantial sum
of money, specifically $5,000, if he refrained from certain vices and behaviors until he reached
the age of 21.

( Luise Hamer is the plaintiff in the case, hamer was the wife of the nephew, and Story is the
uncle who made the promise.)

The conditions of the agreement were that Hamer had to abstain from drinking alcohol, using
tobacco, gambling, and swearing. In return, Uncle Story would pay him the agreed-upon
amount.

Hamer agreed to the terms and successfully maintained his part of the bargain. He abstained
from the prohibited behaviors and patiently waited until he turned 21. Once Hamer reached the
age of 21, he approached Uncle Story to claim the promised payment.

However, things took an unexpected turn. Uncle Story's estate, following his passing, refused to
honor the agreement and denied Hamer the agreed-upon sum of money. They argued that
Hamer's compliance with the conditions of the contract amounted to mere forbearance, rather
than valid consideration. So, Hamer filed a legal claim against the estate, seeking the
enforcement of the agreement and the payment of the promised sum.

Judgement of the court:

In the case of Hamer vs. Sidway, the lower court was the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division. In their judgment, the lower court ruled in favor of William E. Hamer, the nephew,
stating that he was entitled to receive the promised sum of money from his uncle's estate.

The higher court in this case was the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in
the state. Upon reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Hamer. They
affirmed the lower court's decision and held that Hamer had fulfilled his obligations under the
contract by refraining from the specified vices and behaviors until reaching the age of 21.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Hamer's compliance with the terms of the agreement
constituted valid consideration and rejected the argument made by Uncle Story's estate that
Hamer's actions were merely an act of forbearance without legal significance.

Thus, both the lower court and the higher court, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, and the New York Court of Appeals respectively, ruled in favor of Hamer, ensuring that
he was granted the payment he was promised for fulfilling his side of the contract.

CASE 2 : BALFOUR VS BALFOUR 1919

Balfour v. Balfour is a landmark case in contract law from 1919. It involved a husband and wife,
Mr. and Mrs. Balfour, who had separated after Mr. Balfour went to work in Ceylon (now Sri
Lanka), while Mrs. Balfour remained in England due to health issues.

The case revolved around a written agreement between the couple, where Mr. Balfour
promised to provide Mrs. Balfour with a monthly allowance. Unfortunately, the marriage ended
in divorce, and Mrs. Balfour sued for breach of contract, claiming the unpaid allowance.

The lower court, the Court of Appeal, initially ruled in favor of Mrs. Balfour, stating that there
was a valid contract between the couple. However, the higher court, the House of Lords,
overturned the decision and held that there was no intention to create a legally binding
agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour. They ruled that it was a domestic agreement rather
than a contract, as there was no intention to create legal relations.