Batsakis v. Demotsis

Batsakis v. Demotsis - in ascertaining the presence of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 9/10 Bargain Theory of Consideration Batsakis v. Demotsis, Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 1949 Facts : Demotsis wrote a letter to Batsakis saying she had received 500,000 drachmae and promised to repay $2,000 with 8% interest. Later, the defendant now claims that the 500,000 drachmae were only worth $25 and thus there is want and failure of consideration. Procedure : plaintiff sued defendant to recover $2,000 with 8% annual interest from April 2, 1942. Trial court (no jury) resulted in judgment for plaintiff of $1,163.83. Plaintiff has appealed. Issue : whether inadequate consideration voids a contract for want of consideration. Holding : There was no “want of consideration” nor was there “failure of consideration.” This court reformed and affirmed the judgment. It should’ve been $2,000 plus interest and not $750.00 plus interest. *Rule : mere inadequacy of consideration will not void a valid contract (classical standard) Class Notes : Adequacy of Consideration
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: in ascertaining the presence of consideration, the courts will not weigh the consideration, or insist on a fair or even exchange. Roy Notes : Nominal consideration v. adequacy of consideration inadequate consideration still has a bargained for exchange. Nominal consideration isnt a quid pro quo. It didnt induce the promise. Classical Theory not concerned with fairness Restatement (Second) 79 no requirement or equivalence in the values exchanged. (However, gross inadequacy of consideration may be relevant). If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of (a) a gain, advantage, or benefit to the promisor or a loss, disadvantage, or detriment to the promise; or (b) equivalence in the values exchanged (Batsakis); or (c) mutuality of obligation Mutuality of Obligation there is no such thing; it is not a requirement we still recognize...
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Batsakis v. Demotsis - in ascertaining the presence of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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