In the case of Clark v. Sidway, a dispute arose over an agreement between William E. Story Sr., and his nephew, William E. Story II. The uncle promised to pay his nephew $5,000 if he refrained from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached 21 years old. Upon reaching this age and having fulfilled these conditions, the nephew requested payment but was refused by his uncle who claimed that no legal consideration existed as the contract only benefited the nephew's health and morals. After both parties passed away (the uncle in 1887), their executors continued litigation with Louisa W.T Clark representing her husband’s estate (Story Sr.) against Sidney Paine Sidway representing Story II's estate. The New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mr. Sidway stating that forbearance from lawful acts at another party's request can constitute valid consideration for a promise; thus making it enforceable under law even if one party benefits more than another does not invalidate it. This ruling set precedent on how courts view contracts based on moral obligations versus those based on legal considerations - affirming that any act involving sacrifice or inconvenience undertaken at someone else’s request could be seen as sufficient consideration to form a binding contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Clark v. Sidway, it was argued that the nephew had provided sufficient consideration to form a binding contract with his uncle by abstaining from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing and gambling until he turned 21. The justice believed that this abstinence constituted a sacrifice on part of the nephew which in turn benefited society at large and thus should be considered as valid consideration under contract law. He disagreed with majority's view that there was no legal detriment suffered by the nephew because these activities were not rights but privileges which could be given up without any loss or harm. Instead, he held that giving up one's freedom to engage in lawful activities does constitute a legal detriment even if those activities are potentially harmful or immoral.