In class, in his answer to Kingsfield's hypothetical case, Ford's citing of the Hamer case to argue that no contract exists because no value passed to the uncle as a result of the nephew's forbearance of "wine, etc" is exactly the reverse of the ruling in the cited case, the holding of which being that such forbearance does indeed constitute consideration, thus making the contract valid and enforceable. Furthermore, Kingsfield fails to correct Ford of such an egregious error, compounding the factual mistake.