Last minute K Q- Family promises Forum
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm
Last minute K Q- Family promises
What's the deal with them? I'm still not entirely clear. I keep hearing mixed things, as in the general rule, family promises are never valid because of lack of consideration, but then in some cases they are, and its not even acknowledged that they were family members in the reasoning. I don't see why consideration is needed in a family promise. If the two parties are agreeing to something and giving adequate consideration why the fuck is it relevant if they are related? Or am I not even understanding this whole concept correctly. AHHHHH
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:32 am
Re: Last minute K Q- Family promises
The family relationship between the parties really does not have anything to do with enforceability. It's all a question of consideration (bargained-for exchange).
Not enforceable: aunt says to nephew "I will give you $2000 when you turn 25" and nephew says "cool, I'll take the money when I'm 25." This not an enforceable promise because there is no consideration. The aunt is not getting anything in return for her promise to the nephew. It is completely irrelevant that they are relatives.
Enforceable: aunt says to nephew "If you promise not to drink before you turn 25 I will give you $2,000" and nephew says "Okay, I won't drink until after I turn 25 in exchange for your $2,000." This promise IS enforceable because both parties have bargained for and will receive something they wanted (aunt gets nephew to abstain from alcohol until after he is 25, which is something she apparently wanted, and nephew gets money). Again, irrelevant that they are relatives.
Not enforceable: aunt says to nephew "I will give you $2000 when you turn 25" and nephew says "cool, I'll take the money when I'm 25." This not an enforceable promise because there is no consideration. The aunt is not getting anything in return for her promise to the nephew. It is completely irrelevant that they are relatives.
Enforceable: aunt says to nephew "If you promise not to drink before you turn 25 I will give you $2,000" and nephew says "Okay, I won't drink until after I turn 25 in exchange for your $2,000." This promise IS enforceable because both parties have bargained for and will receive something they wanted (aunt gets nephew to abstain from alcohol until after he is 25, which is something she apparently wanted, and nephew gets money). Again, irrelevant that they are relatives.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am
Re: Last minute K Q- Family promises
I'm not sure that is correct. The family promise you mentioned as valid is only enforceable if there is a significant economic value to the transaction. In Hamer v. Sidway, there was a family promise with CSD, and the law interjected because it was a very wealthy family and its affairs were business like. If you promised to pay your son $100 for mowing the lawn, that wouldn't be enforceable, but if there was reliance there would be an estoppel case. A little confused on this topic as well...
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:32 am
Re: Last minute K Q- Family promises
That's definitely not how my professor analyzed Hamer. What is CSD?BeaverHunter wrote:I'm not sure that is correct. The family promise you mentioned as valid is only enforceable if there is a significant economic value to the transaction. In Hamer v. Sidway, there was a family promise with CSD, and the law interjected because it was a very wealthy family and its affairs were business like. If you promised to pay your son $100 for mowing the lawn, that wouldn't be enforceable, but if there was reliance there would be an estoppel case. A little confused on this topic as well...
Also, why wouldn't a promise to pay your son $100 to mow the lawn be enforceable? Obviously it would be a waste of time and money to actually sue on a promise like that because the damages are probably very small, but aside from that, what is the reason? There is an offer, the son accepted, there is consideration (your promise to pay, his promise to perform or actual performance if you made it an acceptance by conduct). If you tell him "I will no longer pay you" or decide not to pay after he's performed, why he couldn't he recover for breach of contract?
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:18 pm
Re: Last minute K Q- Family promises
+1...the fact that they're family promises really has nothing to do with whether they're enforceable or not. we also didn't discuss hamer in that way. I took hamer to be that abandoning a legal right or limiting legal freedom as inducement for a promise constitutes consideration.HWS08 wrote:That's definitely not how my professor analyzed Hamer. What is CSD?BeaverHunter wrote:I'm not sure that is correct. The family promise you mentioned as valid is only enforceable if there is a significant economic value to the transaction. In Hamer v. Sidway, there was a family promise with CSD, and the law interjected because it was a very wealthy family and its affairs were business like. If you promised to pay your son $100 for mowing the lawn, that wouldn't be enforceable, but if there was reliance there would be an estoppel case. A little confused on this topic as well...
Also, why wouldn't a promise to pay your son $100 to mow the lawn be enforceable? Obviously it would be a waste of time and money to actually sue on a promise like that because the damages are probably very small, but aside from that, what is the reason? There is an offer, the son accepted, there is consideration (your promise to pay, his promise to perform or actual performance if you made it an acceptance by conduct). If you tell him "I will no longer pay you" or decide not to pay after he's performed, why he couldn't he recover for breach of contract?
in a promissory estoppel context, it can be enforced when one reasonably relies on this family promise (ricketts v. scothorn if you read that one)
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Last minute K Q- Family promises
The unenforceability of "family promises" as contracts stems from the fact that courts refused to recognize love and affection within a family as consideration for the promise.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login