Greiner v. Greiner

NAME: Greiner v. Greiner
COURT: Kansas Supreme Court
DATE: 1930 Judge Burch
TYPE OF ACTION: Breach

FACTS:

Peter Greiner (father) died leaving a widow, Maggie Greiner, and sons and daughters. His sons Henry, Frank and Nicholas and his daughter, Kate, were disinherited and given $5.00 each.
June 1925, son Henry dies intestate and his mother, Maggie, inherits considerable property.
Maggie decides to place two remaining sons on equal footing as those not disinherited.
Maggie intends to give each son 90 acres apiece
Maggie enters into a contract to give Nicholas $2000 instead of property
July 1926 Nicholas writes to Frank on Maggie’s behalf, to invite him and Nicholas to make a settlement.
Frank tells her that he’s not interested in the money, but would prefer the property (now 80 acres) and having a home, which Maggie agrees too this and moves a house onto the property.
Sept. 20, 1926, Frank moves to back.
Spring 1927, house is moved to the 80 acres and Frank moves in and has been there up to the point of suit.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Trial court ordered Maggie to execute the deed to Frank. ∏ appealed on the contention that “going to” give was a future intention and therefore not a contract.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

PLAINTIFF: Maggie Greiner (mother), that the contract in question 1. Did not have any consideration and 2. Was a future intention and therefore not a offer.

DEFENDANT: Frank Greiner (son), that there was an offer, and he accepted it by leaving his homestead and moving onto the property

ISSUE:
Can a promise be enforceable without consideration?
Can a future promise be enforceable if it induced action by the promisee?

HOLDING: Yes, the if the actions by promisee were substantial and were induced by the promise. The second issue of indefiniteness (90 acres, or 80 acres) was determined to be definite through ∏’s actions (selecting the 80 acres and moving a house onto it).
RULE:
§90 Promise reasonably inducing definite and substantial action is binding. A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance, is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. (also know as promissory estoppel)

Equitable estoppel: an estoppel that prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss (def. Findlaw)

RATIONALE: Frank’s brother, August, convinced his mother not to give Frank the land. The court found that since Frank gave up his homestead [] and did move himself and family to the 80 acres, made lasting and valuable improvements and other expenditures relying on his mothers promise. And that he lived there for nearly a year before he was served with notice to quit. That the promise had induced substantial action by promisee and was binding.

RESULT: There is no place like home. (So long as make lasting and valuable improvements and give up your previous home)

Hamer v. Sidway

NAME: Hamer v. Sidway
COURT: New York Court of Appeals
DATE: 1891
TYPE OF ACTION: Breach of Contract

FACTS:

Timeline
March 20th, 1869 Uncle, in presence of family and guests promises nephew that if he would refrain from drinking, smoking and the like until he turns 21 years old, the uncle will give him $5000
January 31st, 1875 Nephew writes Uncle that he preformed his part of the deal
February 6th, 1875 Uncle confirms that he received the Jan 31st letter.
That he has the $5000 in the bank and that he was saving the money for this occasion
Includes a P.S. that the money is now on interest.
Mentions a bunch of sheep that should provide a nice income in the spring.
Finishes saying that he is very sick and has been confined to his room for 17 days, but is feeling better.
Nephew receives the Feb 6th letter and consents that the money (plus interest) should remain in possession of the Uncle.
January 29th, 1887 Uncle William E. Story dies.
Nephew brings claim of $5000 with interest starting Feb 6th, 1875 to Executor of Uncle


PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Trial Court found that there was an agreement (offer of $5000 and acceptance no drinking…) from the March 20th promise.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

PLAINTIFF: The nephew contents that he gave up his right to drink and smoke and is entitled the promised $5000 plus interest

DEFENDANT: The executor contents that giving up drinking and smoking and the like is for the plaintiffs own good. That the uncle gains nothing from the nephew giving up this right. Further, that the statue of limitations of accepting the gift had past.

ISSUE: Is the forbearance of a right sufficient to sustain a promise?

HOLDING: Appeals decision is reversed and the estate owes the nephew his 5k

RULE: Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in the future as an inducement for the promise of the first.

RATIONALE:
The promise is binding. It is sufficient that the plaintiff gave up a legal right. Further, there is nothing to show that the uncle did not benefit. Lastly, the Feb 6th letter closed with the money now accruing interest suggests that the money was now the nephews and the uncle was holding it in trust.