View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff abandoned her place of residence and moved in with the Defendant based on Defendant’s letter inviting Plaintiff. After 2 years, the Defendant asked her to move out.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A promise of mere gratuity is not an enforceable promise.
Issue. Is the Defendant’s promise enforceable?
Held. No. Reversed. The promise is gratuitous and not enforceable. There was no mutuality in the agreement and thus no consideration.
Dissent. The Plaintiff’s action of leaving behind her former residence and moving sixty miles is sufficient consideration to support the promise. The defendant’s desires and motives were not clear in this transaction and consideration was present to form a contract.
Discussion. The court sees this transaction as a conditional gift and not a promise. A condition exists where there is absence of a benefit to the promisor. Here, a benefit to the promisor was not found by the court and thus no consideration. Additionally, there was no bargaining between the parties and the Plaintiff’s promise to move did not induce a promise from the defendant.