Once the lesson is completed, the student will be able to: 1. Define the “past considerations”. 2. Give examples of when a moral obligation may be sufficient to support a promise. 3. Provide examples of the date on which a countervailable contract becomes applicable. (2) It was foreseeable that the promise would be based on the promise; For example, patient Pam promises to bequeath $1,000,000 to good hospital so it can build a new pediatric wing. Good Hospital set up a commemorative plaque announcing the new construction plans and commissioned an architect to design them. There is $100,000 to prepare the wing. Pam later decides not to provide the promised money to the hospital. While Pam`s promise was not supported by consideration, the hospital reasonably deferred to her promise. The case of Hamer v. Sidway (from the 1870s) illustrates the concept of indulgence as a consideration.
In this case, an uncle promised his nephew that if he stopped drinking, smoking, swearing, playing cards and billiards for money until he was twenty-one, he would receive $5,000 (a considerable sum on those days). The nephew has fulfilled his end of contract. Unfortunately, the uncle died without paying his nephew. The uncle`s estate refused to pay the nephew, arguing that the contract was not taken into account. The court ruled in favor of the nephew and found appropriate consideration in the nephew`s leniency towards legal activities in exchange for the uncle`s promise to pay him $5,000.  It does not matter that the uncle did not have to derive a direct material benefit from the nephew`s behaviour. The nephew gave up his legal right to participate in these behaviors and that was enough thought. The doctrine of enforcement law allows for the execution of certain promises, even if there is no quid pro quo if a person has relied on the promise to his or her detriment. There are four requirements of the right to effect the debt: the counterpart is the negotiated exchange of an “infestation” between the contracting parties.
To accept a “legal disadvantage” is to accept to do something that one is not obliged to do, or to agree to refrain from doing something on which one has the legal right. The latter type of consideration is called “indulgence.” There are, however, exceptions to this rule. . . .