Manwill v. Oyler
Facts
Manwill (P) alleged that he made payments to Oyler (D) between 1950 and 1953 on a farm. He also alleged that he transferred a grazing permit worth $1800 and three head of cattle worth $3000 to Oyler.
Manwill brought this lawsuit alleging that Oyler agreed to pay certain sums to him. Oyler filed a motion to dismiss and Manwill amended his complaint to state that the oral promise to repay occurred in October 1957. The trial court denied Oyler’s motion to dismiss and he appealed.
Issue
- What is necessary in order for a moral obligation to repay to constitute valid consideration?
Holding and Rule of Law
- In order for a moral obligation to repay to be valid consideration there must be a transfer of a material benefit such that it is reasonable to be supposed that repayment would be expected.
Manwill had not set forth any facts surrounding the original transactions to show that there was any expectation that he would be compensated in this case. Therefore at the time of the alleged 1957 promise there existed nothing but a bare moral obligation to support the oral promise and that is not sufficient to be valuable consideration. Had Oyler obtained his promise to repay in writing, the promise to repay would have been enforceable. It was error to deny Oyler’s motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judgment reversed.