Dougherty v. Salt

Dougherty v. Salt is a Contracts case holding that a promise to make a gift is not enforceable without consideration. It shows that a valid contract needs a bargained-for exchange, not just expectation.

What is Dougherty v. Salt?

Dougherty v. Salt is a Contracts case about consideration, and it says a promise to give someone money or property later is not a contract if the other side gave nothing in exchange. The court treated the promise as a gift promise, not a bargain.

That matters because contract law does not enforce every serious-looking promise. It asks whether the promise was made as part of an exchange. If one person just says, "I will give you this later," and the other person did not promise, pay, or give up anything in return, there is usually no consideration.

The facts make that point very clearly. A father-like relative promised a young person a sum of money, but the promise was written in a way that showed generosity, not a negotiated trade. The court refused to turn that promise into a binding contract simply because the promise had been put in writing.

The case also shows why past consideration does not count. If the other person already did something before the promise was made, that earlier act cannot be the bargain for the later promise. Contract law looks for a present exchange, not a reward for something already finished.

So when you see Dougherty v. Salt, think "gift promise versus bargain." The case is a clean example of the idea that consideration is about exchange, not just intention, gratitude, or moral obligation. A person may sincerely mean to give money, but without consideration, that promise is usually not enforceable as a contract.

Why Dougherty v. Salt matters in CONTRACTS

Dougherty v. Salt is one of the clearest cases for spotting the boundary between a contract and a gift promise. In Contracts, that boundary shows up constantly because many disputes start with someone saying, "But they promised." The case gives you the legal answer to that instinct: a promise alone is not enough unless it is tied to consideration.

It also sharpens your analysis of bargains. When you read a fact pattern, you have to ask what each side gave up or promised in return. If the answer is nothing, or if the only thing supporting the promise is a past act, the agreement may fail for lack of consideration.

That makes the case useful alongside promissory estoppel, too. If a promise is not enforceable as a contract, a student may need to ask whether reliance changes the result. Dougherty v. Salt sets up that next question by showing the baseline rule first: no bargain, no contract.

The case is also a good writing tool. In an essay or case brief, you can use it to support the statement that consideration must be bargained for, not merely hoped for, appreciated, or morally deserved.

How Dougherty v. Salt connects across the course

Consideration

This is the main doctrine Dougherty v. Salt illustrates. The case shows that consideration has to be part of a real exchange, not just a promise that sounds generous or fair. If you are spotting consideration in a fact pattern, this case helps you rule out promises that are really gifts.

bargained-for exchange

Dougherty v. Salt turns on the idea that each side must give something because the other side asked for it as part of the deal. That is what makes a promise enforceable in contract law. The case is useful when you need to separate a negotiated deal from a one-sided promise.

past consideration

The case reinforces the rule that something done before the promise usually cannot support a later contract. If the act was already completed, it was not exchanged for the new promise. This comes up often when someone tries to enforce a reward or repayment after the fact.

charitable subscriptions

Both Dougherty v. Salt and charitable subscription problems deal with promises that may feel morally binding but do not always have classic consideration. The difference is whether the law treats the promise as a real exchange or as a gift commitment. That comparison helps you see why some promises are enforced and others are not.

Is Dougherty v. Salt on the CONTRACTS exam?

A case-spotting question may give you a promise, a written note, or a family gift and ask whether it is enforceable. Your move is to check for consideration, then explain whether there was a bargained-for exchange or only a promise to give a gift. If the facts show a past act, say why that does not count as consideration for the later promise.

In a short essay or issue-spotting answer, Dougherty v. Salt works as authority for the rule that generosity is not the same thing as contract formation. Use it when the question turns on whether someone can sue to enforce a promised payment that was never traded for anything. If reliance is mentioned, you can flag that as a separate doctrine, but do not confuse it with consideration itself.

Dougherty v. Salt vs Hamer v. Sidway

These cases are often confused because both deal with promises and something given up. The difference is that Hamer v. Sidway involves a real bargain, where the nephew gave up legal rights in exchange for the promise, while Dougherty v. Salt is a gift promise with no exchange. If you can identify the trade, you are usually in Hamer territory, not Dougherty.

Key things to remember about Dougherty v. Salt

• Dougherty v. Salt says a promise to make a gift is not enforceable as a contract without consideration.

• The case is a clean example of the bargained-for exchange requirement in Contracts.

• Past consideration does not support a new promise, even if the earlier act seems morally deserving of payment.

• When you read a fact pattern, ask what each side promised or gave up in return.

• This case helps you separate a true contract from a one-sided promise or family gift.

Frequently asked questions about Dougherty v. Salt

What is Dougherty v. Salt in Contracts?

Dougherty v. Salt is a contract case about consideration. The court held that a promise to make a gift later is not a binding contract if there was no exchange of value. It is often used to show the difference between a bargain and a gift.

Why was the promise in Dougherty v. Salt not enforceable?

Because the promise was not supported by consideration. The court saw it as a gift promise, not a negotiated exchange where each side gave something up. Without that bargain, the promise could not be enforced as a contract.

Does past consideration count in Dougherty v. Salt?

No. The case reflects the rule that something done before the promise usually cannot serve as consideration for that later promise. Contract law wants the exchange to be part of the deal itself, not a reward for an already completed act.

How is Dougherty v. Salt different from Hamer v. Sidway?

Dougherty v. Salt involves no real exchange, so the promise is treated like a gift. Hamer v. Sidway involves a bargain, because the promisee gave up legal rights in exchange for the promise. That difference is the whole point of comparing the two cases.