Facts: William Story wanted his nephew to grow up healthy and prosperous. In $1869,$ he promised the $15-$year$-$old boy $$5,000$ if the lad would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money, until his twenty$-$first birthday. The nephew had a legal right to do those things. The nephew agreed and kept his word. When he reached his twenty$-$first birthday, the nephew notified his uncle that he had honored the agreement. The uncle congratulated the young man and promised to give him the money, but said he would wait a few more years before handing over the cash, until the nephew was more mature. The uncle died and his estate refused to pay. Hamer, to whom the nephew had transferred his rights, sued. The estate argued that the nephew had given no consideration for the uncle$$s promise. The trial court found for the plaintiff and the uncle$$s estate appealed.

What is the issue in this case? What question does the court need to answer to resolve this case?

What is the rule of law in this case? Remember, the rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to resolve the issue.

Which specific element of the rule is in question in this case?

Next, read the Holding of the case below, then complete the exercise that follows.

Holding: Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. The nephew gave valid consideration by refraining from doing things he was legally entitled to do$.$ The estate argued that there was no consideration because the nephew benefited from avoiding the proscribed actions, but the court was unpersuaded: $$Courts will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of any substantial value to anyone. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.$$

Underline the text that illustrates the rule of law in this case.

Highlight the text that illustrates the court$$s analysis of the case in a color of your choice.

What was the court$$s conclusion in this case?