Sons of Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Contracts

ContractsCharitable subscriptionsConsiderationReliancecharitable subscriptionoral promiseconsiderationreliance

Facts

During a prolonged illness, the decedent was visited by the synagogue's rabbi. On four or five visits, in the presence of witnesses, he orally promised to give the congregation $25,000. The congregation planned to use the money to convert a storage room into a library named after the decedent, but the promise was never put in writing. After the decedent died intestate, survived by his wife, the congregation sought to enforce the promise against his estate.

Issue

Whether the decedent's oral promise to donate $25,000 to the congregation was enforceable as a contract on the basis of consideration and bargain or reliance. Also, assuming Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 might apply to charitable subscriptions, whether enforcement was necessary to avoid injustice.

Rule

A charitable pledge, including an oral promise to donate, is enforceable only if supported by consideration or by reliance sufficient to create an enforceable obligation. Mere budgeting for the expected funds or a hope of receiving them is not consideration or reliance, and an oral promise wholly unsupported by consideration or reliance, especially when asserted against an estate, will not be enforced.

🔒

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 Worcester, Noah Feldman orally told the director of Harbor Light Arts Center, in front of two board members, that he would donate $40,000 sometime the next year. The center internally discussed using the money for a youth studio, but Noah never requested anything in return and died before making the gift.

If the center sues Noah's estate to enforce the oral pledge, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an oral charitable pledge is not enforceable without consideration or reliance. A charity's internal plan for using the funds does not itself create consideration, and moral obligation is not legal obligation. Because the promise was oral, gratuitous, and unsupported by consideration or reliance, it is not enforceable against the estate. (Derived from Sons of Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo (n.d.).)