So one other set of cases that's very interesting to students is a case called Hamer versus Sidway, and Kirksey versus Kirksey. And this is a case that wonderfully illustrates the difference between a gift on one hand, that enforceable contract on the other, what's the difference? At Kirksey versus Kirksey, it was a case in Alabama where a woman, who was related in some way to one of the Kirkseys, was an in-law. her husband dies. The other fellow invites her to come live at his house, on his estate and says, if you come here, I'll provide a place for you to live. She picks up, moves to his place. After about two years, he changes his mind and says, you're not welcome here anymore. and basically says she has to move. Hamer versus Sidway is a case in which a generous uncle tells his nephew. If you abstain, basically from drinking, gambling and women, until your 18th birthday, I will promise to pay you $5,000. So what do we see here? Both cases initially look the same, which is to say what? Which is that they're both promises within a family, to seemingly do or, or not do something. What do the courts hold? Well, interestingly enough, the courts hold that in Hamer versus Sidway, it was an enforceable contract and Kirksey versus Kirksey was not. Now why not? Well, as far as we could tell the logic of the case was that in Hammer versus Sidway, the goal of the uncle was to induce the nephew to live a good clean life. and that the nephew gave up something of value, the ability to have fun, in exchange for this promise, from the uncle. In Kirksey versus Kirksey, by contrast, the logic of the case was that the fellow was offering a gift, but she wasn't being induced to move to the property. It was a condition for her receiving the gift. And that's a good example of the difference between a gift and a contract, which is in one case you get something that looks like an inducement, which is for the so-called promisee to undergo detriment at request of the promisor. In the other case, it was not actually trying to induce her to move there, but instead the court held, it was just a condition for her to receive a gift that, uh, that she go to the property. And so when he changed his mind, the court said that he could basically rescind the gift at that point.