Read the following case and the rule carefully and make an argument with the IRAC method.

Instructions:

1. You task is to make an argument regarding whether a promise to abandon a legal right to use tobacco and alcohol considered sufficient consideration to enforce a contract between the promisor and the promise.

2. The rules you need to know has been given after the description of the case.

3. Follow the structure of IRAC.

The Case:

Hamer v. Sidway

FACTS:

The testator ("the promisor") made an agreement with his nephew ("the promisee") that if he refrained from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of 21, the testator-promisor would pay him $ 5,000. The nephew-promisee fulfilled his obligation. He then notified the testator-promisor of his performance of his part of the agreement. After the testator-promisor admitted the agreement and the performance, the two agreed that the money, including interest, would be held by the testator-promisor until the nephew-promisee was capable of taking care of it. However, the testator-promisor died before paying the nephew-promisee any portion of the agreed-upon sum. The plaintiff, who was the nephew's assignor, filed this action against defendant, who was the executor of the estate, seeking to enforce the now-deceased uncle's promise to pay the sum of money.

++++++++++

RULE:

A valuable consideration in the sense of the law consists either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. 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.