Uncle promised nephew $5k on his 21st b'day if he refrained from alcohol, tobacco, and gambling
Nephew assented to the agreement and performed the duties required by the promise
When nephew turned 21, he agreed to let the uncle hold the $5k + interest until a later date
Uncle died before paying, executor of the estate refused to pay
In trial court, nephew was awarded the money.
On appeal, reversed, nephew gets no money.
Appeal decision reversed, nephew gets the money.
If one of the parties in a K is benefitted and not harmed by holding up his end of the bargain, is the other side still required to perform the promise?
Is consideration properly given if the only requirement is that one side is restricted in his lawful freedom?
The consideration requirement is met if one party is restricted in his lawful freedom.
"It is sufficient that he restricted his lawful freedom of action within certain prescribed limits upon the faith of his uncle's agreement, and now, having fully performed the conditions imposed, it is of no moment whether such performance actually proved a benefit to the promisor, and the court will not inquire into it; but, were it a proper subject of inquiry, we see nothing in this record that would permit a determination that the uncle was not benefited in a legal sense."