Devecmon v. Shaw

Court of Appeals of Maryland
69 Md. 199 (1888)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The incurrence of a detriment or expense by a promisee, at the instance and request of a promisor, constitutes sufficient consideration to make the promisor's promise legally enforceable, even if the promisor receives no direct benefit.

Facts:

John Semmes Devecmon was the nephew of John S. Combs and had lived in his family and worked for him as a clerk for several years.
Combs promised Devecmon that if he took a trip to Europe, Combs would reimburse him for all money he expended on the trip.
Relying on this promise, Devecmon took a trip to Europe in 1878.
Devecmon spent his own money to finance the trip.
The trip had no connection to any of Combs' business affairs.
Combs subsequently died without having reimbursed Devecmon.

Procedural Posture:

John Semmes Devecmon brought suit against the executors of John S. Combs' estate in a trial court.
After the defendants failed to appear, a judgment by default was entered against them.
A jury was empaneled for the limited purpose of assessing the damages owed to the plaintiff.
During the damages hearing, the plaintiff offered testimony regarding Combs' promise to reimburse him for a trip to Europe.
The trial court, on objection, refused to permit this evidence to be given to the jury.
The plaintiff excepted to the trial court's evidentiary ruling and appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a promisee's expenditure of their own money for a trip, incurred at the request of a promisor and in reliance on the promisor's promise to reimburse, constitute sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract?

Opinions:

Majority - Bryan, J.

Yes. A promisee's expenditure of money, incurred at the request of the promisor, is sufficient consideration to create an enforceable contract. The court reasoned that Devecmon incurred a detriment and a burden by spending his own money on a trip he might not have otherwise taken. This detriment was incurred at the express request of his uncle, Combs, and in reliance on Combs' promise to repay. It is irrelevant that Combs received no direct benefit or that Devecmon may have also benefited from the trip. The key element is that Devecmon was induced by the promise to spend his money in a particular way, and allowing the promise to be unfulfilled would mean the expenditure was procured by a false pretense.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational example of the legal principle of consideration, specifically focusing on detrimental reliance. It establishes that consideration does not require a benefit to the promisor; a detriment incurred by the promisee at the promisor's request is sufficient to make a promise binding. This decision helps distinguish an enforceable unilateral contract from an unenforceable gratuitous promise (a promise to make a gift). It solidifies the idea that when one party changes their position or incurs a cost in reliance on another's promise, the law will often step in to enforce that promise to prevent injustice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Devecmon v. Shaw (1888)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"