The distinction between bargained for detriment, which would constitute consideration, and a gift with a condition attached can be extremely difficult. In Hamer v. Sidway, given the relationship between the parties, as well as the uncle's relationship to his nephew's parents and grandparents (note that the promise was made during their 50^th wedding anniversary party), the uncle undoubtedly intended, and the nephew probably understood, that the nephew's behavior was a condition to a gift designed to benefit everyone.

But the fundamental question to be resolved by the law of contract is what promises should be legally enforceable. As we shall see in succeeding cases, consideration is not a panacea for answering that question. Lots of promises not made in return for consideration ought to be enforced by law. The uncle's promise is undoubtedly one of them. The facts give no hint that the uncle would not have honored the promise had he lived, and the conditions of his promise were far from slight. In your words, the nephew "paid a heavy price." When application of the law is doubtful in a given case, the result should be determined by fairness. The court has "got to give him the ice."

So rock on yourself, young dude. And please give my very best to our dean and your rich, I mean wonderful, parents. Class dismissed.