In the Hamer v.Sidway case cited in the textbook,the New York Court of Appeals concluded that:

A) Consideration is not required to enforce an otherwise valid,bargained-for exchange.
B) A benefit to the promisor constitutes valid consideration,but a detriment to the promisee does not constitute valid consideration.
C) Forbearance is sufficient consideration for a valid and enforceable contract.
D) A detriment to the promisee constitutes valid consideration,but a benefit to the promisor does not constitute valid consideration.
E) Forbearance does not satisfy the consideration requirement for a valid and enforceable contract.

Question

kyisha patton · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : C, Explanation :  In the Hamer v.Sidway case,the New York Court of Appeals concluded that forbearance (i.e.,refraining from particular activities)can constitute valid and lawful consideration for a contract.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions