• Source: Kirksey v. Kirksey

kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey v. kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey, Ala. Sup. 8 Ala. 131 (1845), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama that held that a promise by a man, Issac kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey, to give his sister-in-law a house if she would move to his land was not a valid contract because it lacked bargained-for-consideration.
The trial was initiated in Talladega, Alabama.




Background


The plaintiff Antillico kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey was a widow living in a lease-to-own home. After learning of his brother and nephew's deaths, the defendant wrote the following letter to his sister-in-law Antillico:

Dear sister Antillico--Much to my mortification, I heard, that brother Henry was dead, and one of his children. I know that your situation is one of grief, and difficulty. You had a bad chance before, but a great deal worse now. I should like to come and see you, but cannot with convenience at present. I donor [recte do not] know whether you have a preference on the place you live on, or not. If you had, I would advise you to obtain your preference, and sell the land and quit the country, as I understand it is very unhealthy, and I know society is very bad. If you will come down and see me, I will let you have a place to raise your family, and I have more open land than I can tend; and on the account of your situation, and that of your family, I feel like I want you and the children to do well.
Antillico relied on a promise from her brother-in-law and subsequently gave up her leased home. This home would become her opportunity cost when she moved into her brother-in-law's home.




Decision


After receiving the letter from her brother-in-law, the plaintiff moved to the defendant's farm, but the defendant kicked her out after two years, forcing her to live in a dilapidated house in the woods.
Thus, the plaintiff sued to enforce the promise, but the court did not find a valid contract. It held that a promise on the condition, "[i]f you will come down and see me" is not a bargained for exchange for the promisee's "com[ing] down to see" the promisor. The promise is not sufficiently supported by bargained-for consideration and is not enforceable.
Justice John James Ormond issued a dissenting opinion in this case.




Legal analysis


Samuel Williston has opined that the plaintiff should have been allowed to invoke a promissory estoppel which allows plaintiffs to demand remedy for misleading promises. The idea of a "promissory estoppel" had not been fashioned at the time of the kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey holding which could have addressed the injustice experienced by the plaintiff. The injustice was based on detrimental reliance on a broken promise.




See also


Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 1965, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
700 F. 2d 916 - Vastoler v. American Can Company, 1983, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit




References






External links


Casto,W.R. & Ricks, V.D. "Dear Sister Antillico": The story of kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey v. kirksey" target="_blank">Kirksey, 94 Geo. L.J. 321, 383 (2006)

Kata Kunci Pencarian:

• Jake Hess
• Kirksey v. Kirksey
• Kirksey Nix
• Kirksey
• Morris Kirksey
• Henry Kirksey
• Larry Kirksey
• Ivy Kirksey
• Kirksey, Kentucky
• William Kirksey
• Patrol torpedo boat PT-109