Contracts I Goodrich - Outline

Contracts I Goodrich - Outline - www.swapnotes.com...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
www.swapnotes.com Contracts I – Professor Goodrich Summer 2006 1 of 41 BASES OF CONTRACT LIABILITY 1. THE CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENT i. Benefit to promisor/Detriment to Promisee ii. Bargained for and Given in Exchange Restatement §71 i. performance or a return promise must be bargained for - bargained for: sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promise in exchange for that promise - performance: act other than a promise, forbearance, creation, modification or destruction of a legal relation ii. performance or return promise may be given to the promisor or some other person. It may be given by the promise or by some other person. i. n ewdum pactum – naked promise. Promises not supported by consideration are unenforceable and are considered gifts. Kirksey v. Kirksey . The court ruled that the motive behind the brother-in-law’s invitation, to provide for family, was not sufficient consideration to prove a benefit to the promisor and her moving was not sufficient detriment. ii. Legal detriment - sufficient consideration, even if it benefits the promisee. Hamer v. Sidway. The forbearance of the right to smoke, gamble, and drink which actually benefited the promisee is sufficient consideration. Langer v. Superior Steel. The corporation benefited from Langer’s forbearance from working for a competing company. Palmer v. Dehn. Consideration was the forbearance to sue. iii. Economic Benefit – is not the only measure of benefit. It is based on what the promisor wanted.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
www.swapnotes.com Contracts I – Professor Goodrich Summer 2006 2 of 41 Hamer v. Sidway. The uncle requested an act and got what he wanted with no economic benefit to himself. iv. Objective Test – what you agree to is what a reasonable person would take you to agree to, unless you subjectively know. Bogigian v. Bogigian . The court held that the ex-wife wouldn’t reasonably be expected to know about the release of the claim against her ex-husband. v. Promissory/Future promise or act – Past consideration is not consideration. Lanfier v. Lanfier. (B) Mixed Motives and Nominal Consideration Restatement §81 The fact that what is bargained for does not of itself induce the making of the promise does not prevent it from being consideration for the promise. Unless both parties know that the purported consideration is mere pretense, it is immaterial that the promisor’s desire of consideration is incidental to other objectives an even that the other party knows this to be so. i. Nominal Consideration – consideration in name only. “Pretense of Bargain.” Intrinsic Fraud to consider it as legal contract. ii. Motive + nominal consideration = consideration even when what is bargained for does not induce the making of the promise IF both parties don’t believe it is real pretense. Thomas v. Thomas.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 41

Contracts I Goodrich - Outline - www.swapnotes.com...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online