Is a promise to provide housing and land in exchange for a person moving a significant distance sufficient consideration to support a legally enforceable contract?

The plaintiff relocated sixty miles at the defendant's request, breaking up her existing living situation and moving to the defendant's location. The defendant had promised to furnish her with a house and land to cultivate until she could raise her family. The plaintiff sustained loss and inconvenience as a result of this relocation. The defendant subsequently breached this promise, failing to provide the promised housing and land.

The case was initially heard in a lower court. The parties reached an agreement that the judgment of the lower court would be reversed based on the Court's decision on the legal issue presented.

(Ormond, J.)

No. The promise was a mere gratuity that cannot support a legally enforceable contract. While one judge found that the loss and inconvenience sustained by the plaintiff in relocating sixty miles constituted sufficient consideration to support the defendant's promise, the majority concluded otherwise. A promise lacking adequate consideration cannot form the basis of a legally binding contract. The defendant's promise to provide housing and land was gratuitous in nature, meaning it was given freely without receiving anything of legal value in return. Although the plaintiff suffered actual loss and inconvenience by relocating, this detriment alone was insufficient to transform the gratuitous promise into an enforceable contractual obligation. The mere act of moving, even when done in reliance on a promise, does not automatically create consideration where the promise itself was intended as a gift rather than as part of a bargained-for exchange.