Brief Fact Summary. A father made a promise to pay his daughter money if her and her husband were married.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A father's promise to pay his daughter money if she marries a certain individual "induce[d] them to persevere, reliance and detriment may be inferred from the mere fact of performance."
Issue. Is consideration lacking in the Defendant's promise, due to a pre-existing duty?
Held. The court first recognizes that the contract, if there is one involved in this matter, is unilateral. The court also determined "[f]rom all these circumstances, we may infer that at the time of the marriage the promise was known to the bride as well as the husband, and that both acted upon the faith of it." The court concluded since the parties went through with their marriage, and did not exercise the right to terminate their engagement, the Defendant may not detract his promise. The court also found a detriment because the parties gave up the right to rescind the contract between them. In other words since the "promise [ ] induce[d] them to persevere, reliance and detriment may be inferred from the mere fact of performance."
Nothing is consideration that is not regarded as such by both parties.View Full Point of Law