Keller gave Holderman a $300 check for an old silver watch worth about $15 as a joke during a frolic and banter, likely while drunk in a bar. The judge ruled this was not a serious contract since neither party intended it as a real purchase or sale. While people are free to pay more than market value for designer goods, the court will not enforce clearly joking or non-serious promises like the $300 check for the $15 watch since that transaction was understood by both parties to not be a real deal.
Keller gave Holderman a $300 check for an old silver watch worth about $15 as a joke during a frolic and banter, likely while drunk in a bar. The judge ruled this was not a serious contract since neither party intended it as a real purchase or sale. While people are free to pay more than market value for designer goods, the court will not enforce clearly joking or non-serious promises like the $300 check for the $15 watch since that transaction was understood by both parties to not be a real deal.
Keller gave Holderman a $300 check for an old silver watch worth about $15 as a joke during a frolic and banter, likely while drunk in a bar. The judge ruled this was not a serious contract since neither party intended it as a real purchase or sale. While people are free to pay more than market value for designer goods, the court will not enforce clearly joking or non-serious promises like the $300 check for the $15 watch since that transaction was understood by both parties to not be a real deal.
Here's how a court described it. It took place a long time ago. The judge found, as facts, that Keller gave Holderman a check for $300. The check was given for an old silver watch worth about $15, which Keller took and kept till the day of trial when he offered to return it to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it. You can see the picture. You can just imagine how this worked. The whole transaction, the judge found, was a frolic and banter. The plaintiff, not expecting to sell, nor the defendant, intending to buy the watch at the sum for which the check was drawn. And the judge said since this was a frolic and a banter-- those are the words the court used, a frolic and a banter. Probably a couple of drunks fooling around in a bar. This was not a serious contract. This was not meant to be a purchase or a sale. And this is not a lawsuit which the court is going to fuss about. And the check is worth nothing. This speaks for itself. You know if in either the invitation to dinner example or the $15 watch sold for $300-- which by the way, in those days was a lot of money-- if any court would enforce that, the people would say, "well, the law..." to quote Doctor Johnson, ..."is an ass." The principle that this last example reveals is that when both parties know that the promise is a joke, when neither side takes it seriously, well, that's just not the kind of situation where the government wants to be hauled into, use its force to stand behind the interaction. Now of course life is full of people who sell things for much, much more than they're worth. They give a check and those checks are honored and have to be honored and should be honored, because it's up to you to decide how much you want to pay for a designer set of shoes or for a silly hat. That's up to you. And you don't want the courts figuring well that hat or those shoes only cost the manufacturer about $20 to make. So we're not going to allow anybody to buy them for $400. Why not? If people could only pay what these things are worth, the whole fashion industry would be in deep trouble. Those are real deals. But the silver watch wasn't even that kind of a real deal. It was no deal at all. It was a frolic and a banter.
G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HART, ET AL. BR :BR :026 Phil 149: NOVEMBER 1913 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
En Banc G.R. No. L-10263 March 13, 1915 THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAIME FILART and HILARIO SINGSON, Defendant-Appellants. Moreland, J.