Kirksey v. Kirksey – Case Brief
Kirksey v. Kirksey, 8 Ala. 131 (1845).
Case Summary
Facts: Kirksey (D) was the brother of Antillico’s (P) deceased husband. D offered P a home on his property and P accepted. P moved sixty miles and lived in D’s home for two years. D forced her to relocate to a remote location on the property and later demanded that she leave altogether. P sued for breach of contract on the grounds that her costs in relocating to D’s property were sufficient consideration to enforce D’s promise to provide her with a home. The court entered a judgment in favor of P for $200 and D appealed.
Issue: Is a gratuitous promise enforceable where a party has reasonably relied on that promise and has suffered loss and inconvenience?
Holding and Rule: No. A gratuitous promise is not enforceable even if a party has reasonably relied on that promise and has suffered loss and inconvenience. The court held that D’s promise was a mere gratuity and not an enforceable.
Disposition: Reversed.
Dissent (Ormond): P’s loss and inconvenience were sufficient consideration to render D’s promise enforceable.
Notes: Contract offers are to be interpreted according to a manifestation of contractual intent. This is determined by considering what a reasonable person standing in P’s shoes would perceive to have been said. Today, the doctrine of promissory estoppel would allow the enforcement of the contract because P reasonably relied upon D’s promise to her detriment. Promissory estoppel is a consideration substitute and is not consideration; it must therefore be considered only when consideration is not present.