Contract law exists to help us determine when promises are legally binding and enforceable. At its core, a contract requires several key elements to be valid: offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, capacity, and (in certain cases) a written agreement. If even one of these is missing, the whole agreement could fall apart.
That’s why understanding the concept of consideration — what each party gives in exchange — is so essential. And one of the earliest cases to put this issue under the legal microscope was Kirksey v. Kirksey (1845), a decision that still holds weight in how we think about contracts today.
The Background: A Promise, a Move, and a Lawsuit
In Kirksey v. Kirksey, the plaintiff was the defendant’s sister-in-law. After her husband passed away, she received a letter from her brother-in-law inviting her to leave her home and move onto his land. He promised her a place to stay — a house on his property — if she made the move.
She accepted the offer, uprooted her life, and relocated with her children to his property. But just two years later, he told her to leave. She sued, claiming the letter constituted a contract that he had breached.
The Legal Question: Was There Consideration?
The court had to decide whether the promise made by the defendant created a legally enforceable contract — and that hinged on one thing: consideration.
Consideration, in legal terms, means that both sides must exchange something of value. It doesn’t always have to be monetary — time, labor, goods, or services can all count — but it must be something that holds value in the eyes of the law. And importantly, it has to be more than a gesture, favor, or moral obligation.
In this case, the court ruled against the plaintiff. Even though she moved at the defendant’s urging and relied on his promise, she gave up nothing of concrete value in return. The court found that her relocation — while inconvenient — was not sufficient legal consideration for the promise of free housing.
Why It Still Matters Today
Kirksey v. Kirksey may seem outdated, but its lesson is timeless: goodwill is not the same as enforceable consideration. In business, this distinction becomes even more important when you’re drafting service agreements, vendor contracts, partnership terms, or client proposals.
If you’re a small business owner, here’s how this applies:
1. Don’t Rely on Verbal Promises Alone
If someone makes you a promise — even in writing — it’s not enforceable unless there’s mutual consideration. A text, email, or casual conversation isn’t a substitute for a properly written agreement that outlines what each party is providing or receiving.
2. Define the Exchange Clearly in Your Contracts
If you’re providing a service (like web design, consulting, photography, etc.), spell out what the deliverables are and what the client is paying for. For example, “three rounds of revisions” or “10 consulting hours per month” adds boundaries and reinforces the consideration from both sides.
3. Be Wary of “Free” Deals in B2B Settings
If you’re entering a deal that seems too one-sided — like offering a free service with the vague hope of future business — you may find yourself in the same position as the plaintiff in Kirksey v. Kirksey. Courts rarely enforce promises that aren’t backed by a concrete exchange.
4. Understand That Reliance ≠ Consideration
Even if you make a big decision based on someone’s promise (like the plaintiff moving homes), if there’s no defined value exchanged, it likely won’t hold up in court. That’s why business agreements should avoid ambiguity and be backed by mutual obligation.
Modern Examples: From Tech to Real Estate
Take the modern business example of a tech startup promising equity to a developer in exchange for work. If there’s no written agreement and the “equity” is never defined or issued, that could lead to a very murky legal dispute. Or in real estate, if a landlord tells a friend they can “stay as long as they need” without a lease, removing them later may not even require formal eviction, depending on the terms.
Even high-profile deals reflect this legal principle. Consider Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter: while it started as a casual interaction, what made the deal enforceable were the formal documents filed with the SEC, the mutual obligations, and the financial consideration involved. Had it all stayed on Twitter as tweets, it might’ve ended up like Kirksey v. Kirksey — full of intent but legally toothless.
Final Thoughts
Kirksey v. Kirksey reminds us that a promise, no matter how sincere, doesn’t always make a contract. In business, this distinction is critical. If you’re making deals, giving discounts, forming partnerships, or agreeing to projects — make sure the exchange of value is clear, mutual, and documented.
Whether you’re forming a new venture, drafting service contracts, or just navigating day-to-day transactions, it’s always smart to have your agreements reviewed by a legal or tax professional.
Image by congerdesign