For law students, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a binding contract requires consideration, a bargained for benefit or detriment. As suggested by a law school classic, Hamer v. Sidway, merely refraining from the exercise of legal rights, such as smoking, can count as consideration.
What about love? Last week, in Williams v. Ormsby, the Ohio Supreme Court held that love alone does not qualify as consideration: “merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for the formation of a contract.”
Justice Pfiefer concurred with the facts only, but in his view, the facts involved more than the couple in question resuming romance. Rather, the couple’s history led him to a conclusion not far from Hamer v. Sidway: “Among the consideration that Williams and Ormsby offered for the second agreement was the voiding of the first agreement, which denied to each of them rights that the first agreement granted.”
For the full story, read the opinion and the Columbus Dispatch reporting.
What about love? Last week, in Williams v. Ormsby, the Ohio Supreme Court held that love alone does not qualify as consideration: “merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for the formation of a contract.”
Justice Pfiefer concurred with the facts only, but in his view, the facts involved more than the couple in question resuming romance. Rather, the couple’s history led him to a conclusion not far from Hamer v. Sidway: “Among the consideration that Williams and Ormsby offered for the second agreement was the voiding of the first agreement, which denied to each of them rights that the first agreement granted.”
For the full story, read the opinion and the Columbus Dispatch reporting.