Kirksey
was a widow who was leasing a property.Her brother-in-law wrote her a letter telling her to
give up the lease and move to a house on his land, which she did.
After
two years, he told her to move out.She sued.
Trial
Court found in favor of the widow and ordered a $200 judgment.Brother-in-law appealed.
Appellate
Court found that the promise was a mere gratuity, and therefore reversed
the Trial Court's decision.
The
fact that the plaintiff did something
can't be considered consideration because everyone must always do something to get the gift, even
if it's just "holding out one's hand."
In a
dissent, one Justice said that the widow's giving up of her house and
moving was sufficient consideration.
The
plaintiff gave up her house, so she is in a worse place that she would
have been if she had never accepted the promise.However, she did not give up the
house in order to get the exchange.Giving up the house was not an inducement to the brother-in-law to give her a place to
live, therefore it is not a consideration.
This
decision was based on 'old' theories of reliance.It was cases like this that troubled judges and led to a
reinterpretation of the concept of reliance.
