Plaintiff drilled and dug a 250-foot well and placed casing in it on land owned by defendant, at the request of defendant's tenant who possessed the land. The complaint alleged the well was a valuable improvement to the premises, added value, and had been used by the occupants with defendant's knowledge and consent. After examining the well, defendant allegedly expressly ratified his tenant's act and promised to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of digging and casing the well. Defendant refused to pay, and on appeal challenged the sufficiency of the complaint on the ground that the promise was based on past consideration.
Issue
Whether a complaint states a cause of action when it alleges that, after past services were completed without defendant's prior request, defendant expressly promised to pay for them because the services directly benefited him and were not gratuitous.
Rule
Although past services generally do not constitute sufficient consideration for a later promise to pay, a subsequent express promise is binding if the prior services were beneficial to the promisor, moved directly to the promisor's benefit, and were not intended to be gratuitous or merely voluntary acts of courtesy.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Omaha, Nora Lin, a masonry contractor, was hired by a restaurant tenant to rebuild a collapsing brick entryway attached to a building owned by Victor Ames. The work permanently strengthened the building, Victor inspected it after completion, said it clearly increased the property's value, and expressly promised Nora he would pay the reasonable value of the masonry work. He later refused.
Is Victor's promise most likely enforceable?
Explanation. The majority recognized the general rule that past services ordinarily are insufficient consideration, but held a later express promise is binding when the earlier services were beneficial, moved directly to the promisor's benefit, and were not intended to be gratuitous or merely courteous. Here, the masonry permanently improved Victor's building, he knew of and inspected the benefit, and he expressly promised to pay. That makes the promise supported by sufficient consideration. (Derived from Edson v. Poppe (n.d.).)