Earle v. Angell

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Contracts

Contractsparol contractpromise for promiseconsiderationpayment after deathmutual assentacceptancequalified acceptance

Facts

According to the plaintiff's testimony, the defendant's testatrix told him, in substance, that if he would agree to come to her funeral, she would give him $500. The plaintiff testified that he promised to come if he was alive and notified in time. The alleged obligation was to be paid after the promisor's death. The trial court nonetheless ruled that the plaintiff could not recover.

Issue

Was there evidence from which a jury could find an enforceable oral contract under which the testatrix promised to pay the plaintiff $500 after her death in exchange for his promise to attend her funeral? Did the plaintiff's response fail as an acceptance because it varied from the offer?

Rule

A parol contract to pay a person money after the promisor's death is valid when supported by consideration, including a return promise. Evidence that one party offered payment in exchange for the other's promise, and that the parties face to face separated apparently agreed, can warrant a finding of mutual assent even if it is argued that the acceptance varied somewhat from the offer.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Lena Morrell told Devon Pike during a conversation at her apartment, "If you agree to sing one hymn at my memorial service, I will have $2,000 paid to you after I die." Devon answered, "I agree." Lena later died, and her executor refused payment solely because the promise was oral and payment was to occur after death.

If Devon sues, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority states that it is well settled that a contract to pay money after one's own death is valid. Thus, the timing of payment after death creates no legal obstacle if there is consideration, such as Devon's return promise. (Derived from Earle v. Angell (n.d.).)