Kirksey v. Kirksey

Supreme Court of Alabama · 1845 · Contracts

Contractspromissory estoppelconsiderationgiftrelianceconsiderationgratuitous promisegift promise

Facts

The defendant promised the plaintiff that he would furnish her with a house and land to cultivate until she could raise her family. In response, the plaintiff broke up her existing situation and moved to the defendant's place, which was sixty miles away. The plaintiff sustained loss and inconvenience by making that move. The dispute is whether that loss and inconvenience supplied consideration for the defendant's promise.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's loss and inconvenience in breaking up and moving sixty miles to the defendant's place constituted sufficient consideration to make the defendant's promise to furnish a house and land enforceable.

Rule

If a promisor's undertaking is a mere gratuity, no action will lie for its breach because it is not supported by consideration.

🔒

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 rural Georgia, Nolan Pierce wrote to his widowed sister-in-law, Tessa Boone, saying that if she moved from Macon to his property near Augusta, he would let her live in a cottage there for free for as long as she needed. Tessa sold off household items at a loss, left her rented home, and moved with her children, but six months later Nolan told her to leave.

If Tessa sues Nolan for breach, which is the strongest argument for Nolan under the governing rule of this case?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a promise that is merely gratuitous is not enforceable for lack of consideration. Under that rule, even though Tessa suffered loss and inconvenience by moving, those facts do not by themselves convert a gratuitous promise into an enforceable contract. The opinion rejected enforcement on precisely that ground and did not adopt a reliance-based rule.