Good afternoon,everyone! I amXX, counsel of defendant, and I’m going to make the

closing argument.

May it please the court, counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

I want to ask some questions if you don’t mind. Did you ever say such words to a

little boy or little girl “ If you don’t cry, I will buy a room of candies for you” or “ If you

make progress in the final exam, I will take you to the Disney.”? Do you think it’s a

contract or an unilateral encouragement or incentive? Do you intend to be bound by

such words when you just want to encourage the naughty kid? Can you benefit from

such promise? Did the little boy or little girl suffered any loss from such words?

Maybe you can answer these questions more firmly after listening to my closing

argument.

Let’s review this case. My client, Ms. Sidway, who was the executor of William E.

Story, received the claim for $5,000 and interest from the 6th day of February, 1875

by the plaintiff, Ms.Hamer. Ms. Hamer made such claim because she acquired this

asset through several mesne assignment. My client was shocked to find that the

diligent uncle Mr.William E. Story promised to his nephew William E. Story, 2d that if

he would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards

for money until he became 21 years old, he would pay him a sum of $5,000, 22 years

ago. The nephew wrote to his uncle when he arrived at 21 years old informing that

he had performed his part of the agreement and had become entitled to the sum of

$5,000. But the uncle Mr.William didn’t pay his nephew before his death.

The issue of this case is whether the promise constitutes a contract and whether the

consideration exists. There are several points I want to remind you.

First, a promise is not enforceable by way of court action unless it is validated by

consideration or a substitute of consideration. Consideration is a

bargained-for-exchange for a legal value. Two essential elements of consideration are

(1)legal value, and (2) bargained-for-exchange. The legal value may consist either in

some right, interest, profit, or some forbearance, detriment, loss and so on. In order

to constitute consideration, the detriment to the promisee or benefit to the promisor

must be bargained for and given in exchange for the promise. Second, applying this rule to this case, the promise is not enforceable because

there is no consideration. It’s obvious that the asset $5,000 satisfies with the first

element---legal value. But this promise can’t satisfy the second

element---bargained-for-exchange. The promisee, that is the nephew William E. story,

2d, refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco was not harmed but benefited. He

quit bad habits and his health benefited by accepting such promise. As Ms.Hamer

said in her testimony, the promisor, that is the uncle William E. Story didn’t benefit

from this promise. According to William E. Story’s letter to his nephew, we can see

that he worked very hard to earn money, opening the grocery store early, closing late,

sleeping in the fourth story of the building alone, but he promised to pay his nephew

$5,000 if his nephew quit some bad habits. How can you say that this uncle benefited

form such promise? It may be that the uncle William was morally bound to keep his

promise; but a gratuitous promise, will not be enforced by courts of justice, no

matter how strong may be the motives, or even the moral duty. Therefore, the

contract was without consideration to support it, and, therefore, invalid.

Third, even if there is a contract, this action would be barred by the Statute of

Limitations in New York. Even if William ever had a cause of action against the uncle

William, no one claimed the right for $5,000 in the past 12 years. According to the

Statute of Limitations in New York, the time limitation for contract or collection of

debt on account is only 6 years.

Last but not least, the relationship between the uncle and nephew was a mere

promise to make a gift. As we read between the lines of the letter as one of the

evidence, we can find that this promise was not that he would pay him that amount

for any service to be performed for the uncle, but that he would give him that

amount as a gratuity, as an incentive to his nephew to become a sober and worthy

man, free from evil and useless habits. In the uncle’s letter there is nothing reflecting

that he recognized any legal liability or binding contract upon which he regarded

himself as indebted to his nephew. On the contrary, I want to remind you, the uncle

William treated the matter as a promise to make a gift at that time, and he in effect

refused to perfect the gift by delivery, but insisted on retaining it under his own