Palmer v. Dehn - 29 Tenn. App. 597, 198 S.W.2d 827 (1946)

Rule:

For there to be a consideration in a contract between parties to the contract it is not necessary that something concrete and tangible move from one to the other. Any benefit to one and detriment to the other may be a sufficient consideration. The jury may draw any reasonable and natural inference from the proof and if by inference from the proof and if by inference a benefit to the promisor and detriment to the promisee might be inferred this will constitute a valid consideration.

Facts:

The mechanic had worked on the vehicle owner's bus and was attempting to show the owner how tight a belt should be when the owner's driver started the motor, cutting off two of the mechanic's fingers. The owner rushed the mechanic to a local hospital and promised to compensate him for the loss and to pay his expenses. Later the owner made a similar assurance. On appeal from the jury verdicts, the owner argued that there was no consideration for the promise or contract and that the mechanic was guilty of contributory negligence.

Issue:

Was the owner’s argument that there was no consideration for the promise or contract meritorious?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court affirmed. The jury was justified in inferring that foregoing the mechanic's right of action for a reasonable time was a good consideration to the owner and that the basis of the promise was for forbearance in bringing suit. It was true that there was introduced very positive proof that tended to show the mechanic was guilty of contributory negligence. However, that merely made a question for the jury, who, under proper instructions on the subject, decided in favor of the mechanic. The court held that there was material evidence to support the verdict.