American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

inding. Spahr v. Hollingshead, 8 Blackf. 415 (Ind. 1847). There was no mistake of
law or fact in this case, as the agreement admits the will inoperative and void. The
promise was simply one to make a gift. The past services of his wife, and the love and
affection he had borne her, are objectionable as legal considerations for Schnell’s
promise, on two grounds: (1) They are past considerations. (2) The fact that Schnell
loved his wife, and that she had been industrious, constituted no consideration for his
promise to pay J. B. Nell, and the Lorenzes, a sum of money. Whether, if his wife, in
her lifetime, had made a bargain with Schnell, that, in consideration of his promising
to pay, after her death, to the persons named, a sum of money, she would be
industrious, and worthy of his affection, such a promise would have been valid and
consistent with public policy, we need not decide.
Nor is the fact that Schnell now venerates the memory of his deceased wife, a
legal consideration for a promise to pay any third person money.
The instrument sued on, interpreted in the light of the facts alleged in the
second paragraph of the answer, will not support an action. The demurrer to the
answer should have been overruled. See Stevenson v. Druley, 4 Ind. 519 (1853).
______________________
Review Question 3. Schnell appears to have—acting of his own free will—
intended to legally bind himself to pay money to Nell and the Lorenzes. Why should
the law not compel him to perform? Should a general policy preference for freedom of
contract apply in this situation? If we are going to enforce some promises as contracts,
then why not enforce this one?
Review Question 4. The agreement signed by Schnell recites several different
things that might amount to consideration. Make a list of the various items and try
to see why they do not amount to “consideration.”
______________________
HAMER v. SIDWAY
Court of Appeals of New York
79 Sickels 538, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891)
APPEAL from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth
judicial department, made July 1, 1890, which reversed a judgment in favor of
plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granted a
new trial.
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 7: THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF CONSIDERATION 125