No, his promise was not an enforceable contract. The court said the brother-in-law's offer was just a kind gift, not a business deal. Her moving was just something she had to do to accept the gift, it wasn't 'payment' for his promise. Since it was just a promise for a gift, and not a two-way bargain, the court couldn't force him to keep his promise.

No, Mrs. Kirksey can't make Mr. Kirksey keep his promise. Although Mrs. Kirksey gave up a lot to move to Mr. Kirksey's place, which might seem like enough to make the promise count, the court considers Mr. Kirksey's promise more like a gift, and you can't sue someone for not giving a gift. Even though it was hard for Mrs. Kirksey to move, it's not enough to make the promise legally binding. So, the higher court says the first court was wrong, and Mr. Kirksey doesn't have to keep his promise.

No, Mrs. Kirksey can't make Mr. Kirksey keep his promise. Although Mrs. Kirksey gave up a lot to move to Mr. Kirksey's place, which might seem like enough to make the promise count, we consider Mr. Kirksey's promise more like a gift, and you can't sue someone for not giving a gift. Even though it was hard for Mrs. Kirksey to move, it's not enough to make the promise legally binding. We disagree with the first court and hold that Mr. Kirksey doesn't have to keep his promise.

<opinion type="majority"> <author id="b133-4">ORMOND, J.</author> <p id="AmV">The inclination of my mind, is, that the loss and inconvenience, which the plaintiff sustained in breaking up, and moving to the defendant’s, a distance of sixty miles, is a sufficient consideration to support the promise, to furnish her with a house, and land to cultivate, until she could raise her family. My brothers, however think, that the promise on the part of the defendant, was a mere gratuity, and that an action will not lie for its breach. The judgment of the Court below must therefore be reversed, pursuant to the agreement of the parties.</p> </opinion>

No. The promise to provide land and housing was a mere gratuity and is not an enforceable contract. The court reasoned that the defendant's promise was an act of benevolence and not part of a bargained-for exchange. The inconvenience and loss the plaintiff sustained by moving was not the consideration for the promise, but rather a necessary condition to accept the gift. Therefore, because there was no consideration, an action for breach of the promise cannot be maintained. The authoring judge noted his personal inclination was that the plaintiff's detriment should constitute sufficient consideration, but stated that the majority of the court held otherwise.

No, the loss and inconvenience sustained by the plaintiff in moving to the defendant's residence is not sufficient consideration to support the defendant's promise. Although the plaintiff's actions could constitute consideration, because she sustained loss and inconvenience in breaking up her home and moving sixty miles to the defendant's residence, the majority of the court believes that the defendant's promise was a mere gratuity, and therefore an action will not lie for its breach. The promise lacked the necessary consideration to make it a binding contract. As such, the judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

No, the loss and inconvenience sustained by the plaintiff in moving to the defendant's residence is not sufficient consideration to support the defendant's promise. Although the plaintiff's actions could constitute consideration, because she sustained loss and inconvenience in breaking up her home and moving sixty miles to the defendant's residence, we conclude that the defendant's promise was a mere gratuity, and therefore an action will not lie for its breach. The promise lacked the necessary consideration to make it a binding contract. As such, we reverse the judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff, pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

Kirksey v. Kirksey

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot