Palmer v. Dehn

Unknown Court
198 S.W.2d 827 (1946) (1946)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agreement to forbear from enforcing a legal claim, even for an unspecified but reasonable time, is valid consideration for a promise. This forbearance can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the promise and does not need to be expressly stated.

Facts:

Dehn, a skilled mechanic, was inspecting a bus owned by Palmer.
Dehn was having mechanical trouble with a loose belt on the bus.
While Dehn was demonstrating to Palmer how tight the belt should be by placing his fingers on it, Palmer's driver started the motor.
Dehn believed the driver was outside the bus at the time the motor was started.
The motor's activation cut off two of Dehn's fingers.
On the way to the hospital, Palmer told Dehn he would compensate him for the loss of his fingers and cover his expenses.
Palmer later made a similar assurance to Dehn.

Procedural Posture:

Dehn sued Palmer in a trial court on two counts: negligence for personal injuries and breach of contract for Palmer's promise to compensate.
At trial, Palmer moved for a directed verdict as to each count at the close of the plaintiff's proof and again at the close of all proof.
The trial court judge overruled both motions for a directed verdict.
The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict against Palmer.
Palmer, as plaintiff in error, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is a promise to compensate for an injury supported by valid consideration if the injured party's forbearance from bringing a lawsuit can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances?

Opinions:

Majority - Burnett, J.

Yes. A promise to compensate for an injury is supported by valid consideration where forbearance from suing can be reasonably inferred. Forbearance from exercising a legal right is a detriment to the promisee and a benefit to the promisor, and therefore constitutes sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract. The jury was justified in inferring that Dehn accepted Palmer's promise and, in return, forbore from bringing an immediate lawsuit. This forbearance for a reasonable time is a valid consideration. Citing Beasley v. Gregory, the court affirmed that an agreement to delay legal proceedings for even a reasonable, unstated time is sufficient consideration.

Dissenting - McAmis, J.

No. The promise does not constitute an enforceable contract because it lacks consideration. There was no detriment to the plaintiff, Dehn, because he did not give up his right to sue in tort; in fact, he asserted that very right in the first count of his declaration. Consequently, there was no benefit to the defendant, Palmer, as he was not relieved of tort liability. There is no basis to infer a forbearance to sue, as it was not made a condition of the promise and Dehn was not induced to delay suing beyond the statute of limitations.

Analysis:

This decision broadens the scope of what constitutes valid consideration by affirming that it can be implied from the circumstances rather than being explicitly bargained for. It allows juries to find a contract based on an inference that a promise was made to induce forbearance from a lawsuit, even if the parties never discussed it. This moves away from a rigid, formalistic view of consideration, making it easier to enforce informal promises made in the aftermath of an injury, but also potentially creating contractual liability from what may have been intended as a mere expression of sympathy.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Palmer v. Dehn (1946)

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

Premium Feature