Can a verbal promise made by a father to pay for his adult son's medical expenses be legally enforced in the absence of consideration?

The plaintiff provided care and shelter for the defendant's adult son, who was 25 years old and ill. The son had previously left his father's family and became sick while living among strangers. Upon learning of his son's death, the defendant, who was the father, made a written promise to reimburse the plaintiff for the expenses incurred in caring for his son. However, the defendant later decided not to honor this promise. At the time of the son's illness and death, he was not under the care or responsibility of the defendant.

The plaintiff had taken on the responsibility of caring for the sick individual without any prior agreement or obligation to do so. The defendant's son was an adult who had been living independently from his father's family. The written promise of payment was made by the defendant after his son's death, in acknowledgment of the care provided by the plaintiff.

The case was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas. During the proceedings, the court directed a non-suit, effectively dismissing the case. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed this decision, bringing the matter before the current court for review of the lower court's ruling on the non-suit.

(Parker, J.)

No. A verbal promise made by a father to pay for his adult son's medical expenses cannot be legally enforced in the absence of consideration. Mere verbal promises without legal consideration are unenforceable by action, even if refusing to perform such promises may be considered disgraceful. The law leaves the execution of promises without consideration to the conscience of the promisor, only giving legal validity when there is a gain or loss involved. Moral obligations alone are insufficient to support an express promise, unless there is a preexisting obligation that has become inoperative by positive law. This principle distinguishes cases involving debts barred by statutes of limitations, debts incurred by infants, or debts of bankrupts, where an original quid pro quo existed. The absence of a request for services or care from the promisor further negates any legal obligation. State statutes compelling support of poor relations do not automatically create a legal obligation without proper adjudication of the necessary facts. The law recognizes a clear distinction between moral and legal obligations, reserving legal enforcement for promises supported by consideration or those falling under specific exceptions recognized by law. This approach maintains the integrity of contract law while acknowledging that some moral obligations, though praiseworthy when fulfilled, fall outside the realm of legal enforcement.