Contract Law 18 I Mills v Wyman (moral obligation) | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

These cases examine the concept of moral obligation in contract law and the requirements for consideration.

Key Insights

• 👮 Moral obligation alone is not sufficient consideration to enforce a promise, according to the traditional rule in contract law.
• 👻 The modern rule allows for the enforcement of promises based on moral consideration when a material benefit has been received.
• 🍝 The Restatement of Contracts supports the modern rule, recognizing a promise made in recognition of a past benefit to prevent injustice as binding.
• 🧑‍🏭 Timing and the presence of a material benefit are important factors in determining the enforceability of promises based on moral obligation.
• 😑 Past consideration, without a pre-existing legal obligation, is generally not considered valid consideration in contract law.
• 📏 The Mills v. Wyman case is often cited as an example of the traditional rule, while Webb v. McGowan is seen as an example of the modern rule.

Transcript

today we're going to look at two cases Mills V Wyman and Webb V McGowan to introduce the concept of moral obligation and the possibility of moral consideration first let's look at the case of Mills V Wyman which was decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1825 while traveling abroad the Wyman's adult son became ill and without Wym... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: In Mills v. Wyman, why did the court hold that the defendant's moral obligation was not sufficient consideration?

The court believed that a mere moral obligation, without a pre-existing legal obligation, is not enough to enforce a promise, even if the refusal to perform the promise may be disgraceful. Only a pre-existing legal obligation combined with a subsequent promise can qualify as consideration.

Q: What was the ruling in Webb v. McGowan regarding the defendant's moral obligation?

In Webb v. McGowan, the court held that a moral obligation, along with a material benefit received by the promisor, can be considered sufficient consideration. The promise to pay made by McGowan after Webb saved his life was upheld.

Q: How does the concept of past consideration affect the outcome of these cases?

Past consideration refers to acts or benefits rendered before the promise is made. In both cases, past consideration (the good deeds performed) was not considered sufficient consideration. Mills lost because traditional contract law does not recognize past consideration as consideration, while Webb won due to the exception for moral obligations supported by a material benefit.

Q: How does the Restatement of Contracts relate to the rulings in these cases?

The Restatement section 86 states that a promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor is binding to prevent injustice. This aligns with the modern rule followed in Webb v. McGowan, where moral obligation combined with a material benefit is considered sufficient consideration.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Mills v. Wyman (1825): Mills cared for Wyman's adult son without consent and Wyman promised to pay for the expenses. However, the court held that moral obligation alone is not sufficient consideration to enforce the promise.

• Webb v. McGowan (1935): After Webb saved McGowan's life, McGowan promised to pay him for the rest of his life. The court ruled that a moral obligation combined with a material benefit can be considered sufficient consideration.