Story Case

When Harold Bingham, a young man of twenty-two years returned from college in June, 1914, his father said: "Well, Harold try yourself with the plow; let us see whether school has been worth while for you." Harold worked at the plow throughout the summer, and lived at his father's house. When the autumn came, and he was ready to return to school, he asked his father for $200 to spend during the year. The father answered: "Well, son, you earned your way through college last year, and I think it is best for you to do this again. Try it." The son was incensed at his father's refusal to pay the money and brought suit on contract for the reasonable value of his services rendered during the summer. Can he recover?

Ruling Court Case. Dlsbroiw Vs. Durand, Volume 54 New Jersey Law Reports, Page 343; Volume 33 American State Reports, Page 678

Sarah Disbrow and her brother resided together with their mother on a farm, as one family. After the mother's death, the brother and sister continued to reside together until his decease. During his lifetime, he tilled the farm, and the sister kept the house, having no other means of support except to work for strangers. No express contract existed upon the part of the brother to remunerate the sister for her services in the household, nor was the subject of compensation ever discussed or contemplated by either of them. After his death she sued Durand, the personal representative of her brother, for services which she had rendered during his lifetime.

It was insisted, on behalf of Durand, that no contract, either express or implied, existed, because the relationship which existed between the two indicated that there was no intention that she should be paid.

The Chancellor said:"Ordinarily, where services are rendered and voluntarily accepted, the law will imply a promise upon the part of the recipient to pay for them; but where the services are rendered by members of a family, living as one household, to each other, there will be no implication from the mere rendition and acceptance of the services. In order to recover for the services, the plaintiff must show, either that an express contract for the remuneration existed, or that the circumstances under which the services were rendered were such as exhibit a reasonable and proper expectation that there would be compensation".

In accordance with the opinion, the Court decided that the sister could recover nothing for the services which she rendered to her brother during his lifetime.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

"When a person performs services at the request of another, and nothing is said about compensation, the law implies an intention on the part of the recipient of such services to pay the reasonable value thereof to the one who performs them. But when a person performs such services for a person closely related to him, the fact of the existing relationship is evidence that there was no contractual intention to pay for the services. This relationship is, in fact, evidence of an intention that the services shall be gratuitous. If a stranger should ask me to spade his garden, the law would imply an intention on his part to pay for the services. But if my father asks me to do the same act, the law does not imply any such promise on the part of my father. The relationship, which exists, shows that there was no intention that the act should be the basis of a legally binding contract. In the Story Case, Harold cannot recover.