This HTML5 document contains 72 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n8http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
dbpedia-kohttp://ko.dbpedia.org/resource/
n9http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/
n19https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n14http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n18http://encyclopedia.lexroll.com/encyclopedia/hamer-v-sidway/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Hamer_v._Sidway
rdfs:label
Hamer v. Sidway 해머 대 시드웨이 사건
rdfs:comment
Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891), was a noted decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state), New York, United States. Hamer v. Sidway is an important case in American contract law which established that forbearance of legal rights (voluntarily abstaining from one's legal rights) on promises of future benefit made by other parties can constitute valid consideration (the element of exchange generally needed to establish a contract's enforceability in common law systems), and, in addition, that unilateral contracts (those that benefit only one party) were valid under New York law. 해머 대 시드웨이 사건(124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891))은 미국의 유명 판례로 계약법에서 중요하게 다루어진다.
foaf:depiction
n14:Franklin_Sidway.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_contract_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
10199944
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1110007227
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Restatement_of_Contracts,_Second dbr:Assignment_(law) dbr:New_York_State dbr:Parties n8:Franklin_Sidway.jpg dbr:Franklin_Sidway dbr:Common_law dbr:Defendant dbr:Judge dbc:United_States_contract_case_law dbr:Alcohol_(drug) dbr:North_Eastern_Reporter dbr:New_York_Court_of_Appeals dbr:William_C._Ruger dbr:Rufus_Wheeler_Peckham dbr:Promise dbr:Alton_Brooks_Parker dbr:New_York_Supreme_Court dbr:Executor dbr:United_States dbr:Consideration_under_American_law dbr:Element_(criminal_law) dbr:Interest dbr:Billiards dbr:Consideration dbr:Systems dbr:Judicial_opinion dbr:Tobacco dbr:Exchequer_Chamber dbr:Plaintiff dbr:Profanity dbr:Contract dbr:Estate_(law)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n9:hamer_sidway.htm n18:
owl:sameAs
dbpedia-ko:해머_대_시드웨이_사건 freebase:m.02q4_2d n19:4ks9G wikidata:Q5644510
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:More_citations_needed dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Infobox_New_York_COA_case dbt:United_States_contract_case_law
dbo:thumbnail
n14:Franklin_Sidway.jpg?width=300
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:prior
0001-07-01
dbp:arguedate
0001-02-24
dbp:argueyear
1891
dbp:citations
124
dbp:court
dbr:New_York_Court_of_Appeals
dbp:decidedate
0001-04-14
dbp:decideyear
1891
dbp:fullname
Louisa W. Hamer, Appellant, v. Franklin Sidway, as Executor, etc., Respondent.
dbp:holding
Respondent's forbearance of legal rights on the promises of future benefit made by Petitioner could constitute valid consideration.
dbp:litigants
Hamer v. Sidway
dbp:majority
dbr:Alton_Brooks_Parker
dbo:abstract
해머 대 시드웨이 사건(124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891))은 미국의 유명 판례로 계약법에서 중요하게 다루어진다. Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891), was a noted decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state), New York, United States. Hamer v. Sidway is an important case in American contract law which established that forbearance of legal rights (voluntarily abstaining from one's legal rights) on promises of future benefit made by other parties can constitute valid consideration (the element of exchange generally needed to establish a contract's enforceability in common law systems), and, in addition, that unilateral contracts (those that benefit only one party) were valid under New York law.
dbp:associatejudges
Charles Andrews, Robert Earl, Francis M. Finch, John Clinton Gray, Albert Haight, Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., Alton Parker, J., Rufus Wheeler Peckham, Jr.
dbp:chiefjudge
dbr:William_C._Ruger
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Hamer_v._Sidway?oldid=1110007227&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
6559
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Hamer_v._Sidway