Putting It All Together:
Case Synthesis & Note-Taking
Prof. Carol B. Swanson
For Today’s Workshop…

A “Heads Up” on upcoming Contracts
readings…



Knapp/Crystal/Prince, pp. 72-75, 87-88
Hamer v. Sidway (NY Ct App 1891)(uncle
promises nephew $5,000 for abstaining from
alcohol, tobacco, cursing, gambling)
Dougherty v. Salt (NY Ct App 1919)(aunt
gives 8-yr-old nephew a $3,000 note for
“value received”)
NOTES
(OUTLINE)
SYNTHESIS
SYNTHESIS??
NOT!
CASE
CASE
CASE
Law School classes so far…
0%
..
I.
ha
n
ie
rt
Ea
s
ha
lle
ng
i..
.
0%
M
or
ec
tI
e.
..
0%
ha
3.
tw
2.
About what I
expected.
More challenging
than I thought they
would be.
Easier than I thought
they would be.
Ab
ou
1.
Seriously considered giving up?
0%
0%
No
.
2.
Yes.
No.
Ye
s.
1.
Up-to-date with your course reading?
St
a
he
ti c
.
pa
t
rti
n
gt
o
ab
ng
0%
I’m
it
p.
..
Ge
tti
0%
ge
...
0%
...
0%
os
t
m
5.
0%
he
4.
rs
e.
3.
Fo
rt
2.
Of course.
For the most part.
Getting a bit
behind.
Starting to get
swamped.
I’m pathetic.
Of
co
u
1.
As an undergraduate, I…
0%
0%
lw
ta
Al
m
os
So
m
et
im
es
t
oo
k
ay
s.
..
...
...
0%
la
3.
oo
kc
2.
Never took class
notes.
Sometimes took
class notes.
Almost always took
class notes.
Ne
ve
rt
1.
Note-taking BEFORE class…
0%
0%
te
te
s
ea
ny
no
no
’t
m
ak
on
Id
om
et
im
es
cr
ea
te
s,
no
te
e
Is
ay
sc
re
at
lw
s.
.
0%
bu
...
...
ts
le
as
at
e
Ia
4.
0%
ay
sc
re
at
3.
lw
2.
I always create at least
several pages of notes
for class prep.
I always create notes,
but not that much.
I sometimes create
notes.
I don’t make any notes.
Ia
1.
Note-taking IN class…
0%
0%
’t
t
on
Id
es
t
om
et
im
ak
ak
en
en
ot
ot
es
es
..
tn
s,
Is
no
te
ak
e
ay
st
lw
Ia
.
.
0%
bu
ev
...
le
as
ts
at
ak
e
4.
ay
st
3.
0%
lw
2.
I always take at least
several pages of
notes each class.
I always take notes,
but not that much.
I sometimes take
notes.
I don’t take notes.
Ia
1.
Class Prep vs. Class Reality
0%
an
nd
er
st
M
yu
an
di
di
ng
b
ng
b
ef
or
...
ef
or
e.
..
0%
nd
er
st
2.
My understanding
before class
routinely matches
class discussion.
My understanding
before class is
usually in a different
time zone (planet).
M
yu
1.
So What’s the POINT?
Notes in Casebook Structure
Before Class
Refine Notes While in
Class
Further Refinement at Least
Weekly Outside of Class
COURSE
OUTLINE!
Executive Summary
Course Outlines…
..
0%
ar
ly
Ir
eg
ul
Ih
av
e
do
ne
at
ha
.
...
...
0%
ne
ve
rd
3.
0%
av
e
2.
I have never done a
course outline
before.
I have done at least
one course outline,
but not many!
I regularly have
created course
outlines.
Ih
1.
Have you already started your
Contracts outline?
0%
0%
No
.
2.
Yes.
No.
Ye
s.
1.
Note-Taking BASICS (Knapp)
1.
Intro to Contract Law
a)
b)
2.
Sources
Perspectives
Basis of K Obligation:
a)
Mutual Assent
i.
ii.
b)
c)
Objective Theory
Offer/Acceptance in Bilateral, Unilateral
Consideration
Special Issues
Focus on CONSIDERATION…


Define It
 Hamer v. Sidway
 History
 Pennsy Supply, Inc.
 Notes/Functions of Legal Formalities
Apply It
 Dougherty v. Salt
Note-Taking ASIDES…


Keep certain notes to the side as running
tallys rather than keeping them BURIED in
your “normal” notes
Best examples:


POLICY themes
EXAM focus
What about all the stuff in the casebook
that the professor doesn’t mention?
w
Yo
u
It
d
...
et
on
’t
b
ga
0%
ep
en
ds
.
0%
m
e.
..
0%
ir
3.
fa
2.
It’s fair game for the
test.
You won’t be tested
on it.
It depends.
It’
s
1.
CONTRACTS in a NUTSHELL





Contracts are enforceable promises
Not all promises are enforceable
So how do we determine which promises
should be enforced?
PRIMARY MECHANISM—
CONSIDERATION!
Consideration = bargained-for exchange
Consideration “Gold Nuggets”





Benefit to the promisor OR detriment to the
promisee (one way to ascertain existence of
bargained-for exchange)
Gift promises/conditional gifts
Past consideration (is no consideration)
Nominal consideration (in name only)
Adequacy of consideration (almost) never
questioned! (peppercorn)
Case Briefing: Hamer v. Sidway

Case Name/Court/Date:


Hamer v. Sidway (N.Y. Ct. App. 1891)
Procedural Posture (Facts?):





P acq’d K claim as remote assignee from nephew
D is executor of uncle’s estate
Special Term trial: J/P
Supreme Ct (Gen’l Term): Rev’d & rem’d
Here: Ct App reverses, affirms Special Term (J/P)
Case Briefing: Hamer v. Sidway Facts






Uncle told his nephew that if the nephew refrained
from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and
playing cards or billiards for money until he became
21, then the uncle would pay him $5,000.
Nephew agreed and fully performed.
When nephew turned 21, parties mutually agreed
that the uncle would hold the $5,000 until the
nephew is capable of “taking care of it.”
Uncle died (12 yrs later) without having paid
nephew.
P acq’d K claim as remote assignee from nephew.
D is executor of uncle’s estate.
Case Briefing:
Hamer v. Sidway Issue & Holding


Does the consideration doctrine’s
benefit/detriment analysis render enforceable
a promise to pay money in return for the
promisee’s agreement to give up liquor,
tobacco, swearing, and gambling, even though
the promisee arguably benefited from
performance, and no benefit to the promisor
has been demonstrated?
Held: YES.
Case Briefing: Hamer v. Sidway Analysis

Court cites various consideration definitions:
 “may consist either in some right, interest, profit or
benefit accruing to the one party, or some
forebearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given,
suffered or undertaken by the other” –Exchequer
Chamber (1875)
 “In general, the waiver of a legal right at the request
of another party is a sufficient consideration for a
promise”
--Parsons
 “Consideration means not so much that one party is
profiting as that the other abandons some legal right
in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in
the future as an inducement for the promise of the
first.” –Pollock
Case Briefing: Hamer v. Sidway Analysis



Promisee nephew had legal right to use tobacco,
drink liquor; he abandoned rights for years, based on
his uncle’s promise
This forbearance furnishes good consideration,
regardless of what effort was required to forego
these activities, or whether the nephew or uncle
benefited from the forbearance
Ct favorably cites several cases finding consideration
where the promisee gave up legal rights: Lakota
(drinking); Talbott (tobacco)
Case Briefing: Hamer v. Sidway Rules




Consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit
or benefit accruing to the promisor, or some forebearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken
by the promisee.
Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting
as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or
limits his legal freedom of action in the future as an
inducement for the promise of the first.
In general, the waiver of a legal right at the request of another
party is a sufficient consideration for a promise.
If a promisee agrees to forego his legal right to engage in
certain activities (like drinking and smoking), that
forebearance is good consideration supporting the promise to
pay.
What Does Dougherty Add?


Aunt hands $3,000 promissory note to 8-yrold nephew (printed form contains the words
“value received”), saying to him “You have
always done for me, and I have signed this
note for you”, and telling his mother that she
loved the child, wanted to take care of him.
Why does the court conclude that this promise
is NOT enforceable?
Not Enforceable Because…
1.
2.
3.
Aunt did not actually
intend to give the boy
$3,000.
There was no legally
cognizable “offer” or
“acceptance.”
There was no
bargained-for
exchange.
0%
Aunt did not a...
0%
There was no l...
0%
There was no b...
Remember the Initial Focus on
CONSIDERATION…


Define It
 Hamer v. Sidway
 History
 Pennsy Supply, Inc.
 Notes/Functions of Legal Formalities
Apply It
 Dougherty v. Salt
CONSIDERATION after Class


Consideration DEFINED

Bargained-For Exchange

Benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee

The forbearance of a legal right is enough (Hamer v.
Sidway)(uncle promises nephew $5,000 to not drink, smoke,
gamble, swear)
COMPARE: Consideration is NOT…

Contrast donative promises (Dougherty v. Salt)(aunt gives 8-yr-old
nephew a $3,000 note for “value received”)

Stated consideration (for “value received”) is not enough
(Dougherty)

Past consideration is no consideration (“you have always done for
me”)(Dougherty)
Synthesis Excitement:
HYPOTHETICAL #1




Alice & Carol are sisters.
Alice is a vegetarian, and she wants Carol
to stop eating meat, too. Carol is reluctant
to give up hamburgers.
Alice says to Carol, “Please stop eating
meat for a month! You are my sister, and
I want you to be healthy. If you give up
meat, you would certainly deserve $300!”
Carol stops eating meat for a month and
now demands $300 from Alice.
What Result?
0%
Ca
ro
lc
an
no
t
r. .
.
0%
re
co
...
0%
Ca
ro
lc
an
3.
re
co
ve
ry
.
2.
No recovery.
Carol can recover
because she gave up
the right to eat meat
for a month.
Carol cannot recover
because she enjoyed a
benefit (good health)
under the promise.
No
1.
Synthesis Excitement:
HYPOTHETICAL #2




Alice & Carol are sisters.
Alice says to Carol, “You are my sister,
and you mean the world to me. You have
taken care of our mother for many years.
In fact, please accept my promissory note
in the amount of $5,000.”
The promissory note includes the
language “for good consideration and
other value received.”
Carol later demands that Alice make good
on the $5,000 note.
What Result?
0%
Ca
ro
lc
an
re
co
...
0%
re
co
...
0%
Ca
ro
lc
an
3.
re
co
ve
ry
.
2.
No recovery.
Carol can recover because
she provided extensive
services in caring for their
mother over the years.
Carol can recover because
the note stated “for good
consideration and other
value received.”
No
1.
Synthesis Excitement:
HYPOTHETICAL #3




Alice & Carol are sisters.
Alice says to Carol, “You are my sister,
and you mean the world to me. I would
feel so much better if you stopped
smoking marijuana for a month. If you
do, I will pay you $500.”
Carol reluctantly stops smoking marijuana
for a month.
Carol demands that Alice pay her $500.
What Result?
et
hi
ng
So
m
Ca
ro
lc
an
0%
el
se
...
0%
re
co
...
0%
re
co
...
4.
0%
Ca
ro
lc
an
3.
re
co
ve
ry
.
2.
No recovery.
Carol can recover
because she gave up
marijuana for a month.
Carol can recover, but
only if the promise
was in writing.
Something else.
No
1.
TIPS for Note-Taking & Outline
SUCCESS



Start Today (set up OUTLINE for each class)
Communicate
Keep in mind the “BIG PICTURE”





Issues/doctrines, not individual cases
Cases demonstrate important CONTEXT
Read the materials closely, but retain perspective
Allocate your time wisely
Maintain your sanity
Good Luck!
Enjoy Your Fall Semester!
Questions or concerns? Feel free to contact me…
Carol Swanson
cswanson@hamline.edu
651-523-2138