Moore v. Elmer
1901 Mass. LEXIS 708, 180 Mass. 15, 61 N.E. 259 (1901)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A promise to pay for services is unenforceable for lack of consideration if the services were rendered in the past as a mere favor, without any initial expectation or implied agreement of payment.
Facts:
- A plaintiff provided sittings to a man named Elmer at Elmer's request.
- At the time the sittings were provided, there was no allegation of an existing debt or an express or implied understanding that Elmer would pay for them.
- After the plaintiff had already provided the sittings, Elmer made a written promise to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff sought to enforce this subsequent written promise.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a bill in equity seeking to enforce a written promise made by Elmer.
- The case came before the highest court for a ruling on the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's bill.
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 subsequent promise to pay for services that were already rendered gratuitously, without an initial understanding of payment, create an enforceable contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, C. J.
No. A subsequent promise to pay for services that were previously rendered as a favor is not supported by valid consideration and is therefore unenforceable. The court reasoned that for Elmer's promise to be binding, it must be supported by consideration. The plaintiff's act of providing sittings occurred before Elmer's promise was made, making it 'executed' or past consideration. While services rendered upon request can sometimes support a later promise, this is only true when the initial request implies an undertaking to pay. Here, the court assumed the sittings were a 'mere favor' since the plaintiff did not allege any initial agreement for payment. A past, gratuitous act cannot be converted into valid legal consideration for a later promise.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the classic contract law doctrine that past consideration is no consideration. It clarifies the narrow exception for when a past service can be valid consideration, requiring that the service was originally rendered with a mutual expectation of compensation. The ruling prevents a party from being legally bound by a promise made out of moral obligation or gratitude for a past benefit that was intended as a gift. It reinforces the 'bargain theory' of consideration, which demands a contemporaneous exchange rather than a reward for a past, gratuitous act.
Unlock the full brief for Moore v. Elmer