Kirksey v. Kirksey

Kirksey v. Kirksey, Ala. Sup. 8 Ala. 131 (1845), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama that held that a promise by a man to give his sister-in-law a house if she would move to his land was not a valid contract because it lacked bargained-for-consideration.[1]

Decision

After learning of the death of his brother (the plaintiff's husband), the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter inquiring about her situation. He said that he would like for her to move to his farm (some 60 miles away) if she had not yet acquired a pre-emption right on her open land. The defendant promised to give the plaintiff a place to stay if she moved. She moved to the defendant's farm, but the defendant kicked her out after two years, forcing her to live in a dilapidated house in the woods. The plaintiff sued to enforce the promise, but the court did not find a valid contract. It held that a promise on the condition, "If you will come down and see me" is not a bargained for exchange for the promisee's "coming down to see" the promisor. The promise is not sufficiently supported by bargained-for consideration and is not enforceable.[2]

gollark: Maybe I should do that when I break things...
gollark: Well, it's easier than admitting you might have made a mistake!
gollark: You know, when I break my stuff through configuration changes, I generally manage to restore it within an hour or so.
gollark: I mean, yes, it's harder to memorize 128-bit addresses than 32-bit ones, but... we have computers to remember long things for us now.
gollark: What's wrong with IPv6? I can't really say much about the design changes versus v4 other than addresses, but it seems... necessary.

References
  1. Ayres, I., and Speidel, R.E. Studies in Contract Law, Seventh Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2008, p. 32
  2. Ayres, p. 32
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.