← All Authorities
United States Leading Case consideration

Hamer v Sidway

124 N.Y. 538 (1891)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Year1891
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Forbearance from exercising a legal right constitutes good consideration for a contractual promise, even absent direct benefit to the promisor.

Key Principle

Forbearance from a legal right constitutes sufficient consideration for a promise, regardless of whether the promisor benefited.

Area of Law

contract

Related Cases

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

On termination of a building contract, a builder may recover reasonable value of work done in restitution, subject to the contract price as a ceiling where work was performed under a valid contract.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Bank late payment fees are not penalties where they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or protect a legitimate interest of the stipulating party.

Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85

High Court of Australia examined the principles governing rectification of written contracts for common intention and unilateral mistake in equity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Hamer v Sidway and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Hamer v Sidway