Case XXI: A Promise a Binding Contract?

Claudina promises her husband, on the day of their marriage, that she will make over to him the sum of three thousand dollars, as soon as he shall have served out the term of his enlistment in the army. In the meanwhile, however, her husband becomes addicted to drink and before the term of his enlistment has expired is a confirmed drunkard. Claudina refuses to keep her promise. She proposes to keep the money herself and use it for her children. Her husband, however, insists that she keep her promise to him and give him the money. What is Claudina to do under these circumstances?

Solution.—Claudina's promise has all the necessary qualities of a binding contract, and it imposes on her, therefore, the obligation of keeping it, in the event of the husband complying with the conditions of the promise. As the case stands, it is not clear what use Claudina's husband is to make of the money once it comes into his possession. If Claudina intended that her husband should be perfectly free in the use of the money for whatever purpose he might choose, and this seems to have been the case, then it is certain that Claudina would never have made the promise had she foreseen the circumstance of her husband becoming a drunkard. The fact that she postponed the fulfilment of her promise until her husband should have completed the term of his enlistment seems to prove that she made this reservation expressly. Since she intended, therefore, to bind herself by her promise only on the condition that her husband should remain a good, decent man, she is, under the circumstances, absolved from all further obligation toward her husband in the matter. For a so-called "contractus gratuitus unilateralis" is considered void when the circumstances of the person or thing have so changed that it may be taken for granted that from the start the obligation imposed by the contract was not to be extended to this case. The wife may rest perfectly easy in her conscience, and all the more so, since she intends to use the money for her children, whereas, the father by his drinking is prevented from taking the necessary care of his family.

But should not the wife, in the interest of domestic peace, give way to her husband and let him have the money? No; because it is not she, but the husband who is disturbing the peace of the family, and if she gives him the money promised she only lends him new means for indulging his habit of drink and further destroying the peace of the home.

Only in case the conveying of the money to the husband did not give him the free disposition of it, neither now nor later, could the wife be advised to make it over to him. But in that case the husband would have no further interest in the matter. The wife may, if she pleases, renew her promise to her husband, but make its fulfilment depend on his thorough and sincere reform.