King v. Trustees of Boston University

King v. Trustees of Boston University - supported by...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 10/3 Protection of Promisee Reliance King v. Trustees of Boston University, Supreme Judicial Court of MA, 1995 Facts : see letter Procedure : trial court jury held that MLK made a charitable pledge to BU of papers he had deposited there; Coretta appeals, alleging that estate, and not BU, held title to the papers. Jury determined that MLK made a promise to give absolute title to his papers to BU in a letter signed July 16, 1964 and that the promise to give the papers was enforceable as a charitable pledge supported by consideration or reliance. The jury also determined that the letter promising the papers was not a contract. Issue : (1) does the July 16 letter set forth a promise by MLK to transfer ownership of his papers to BU and (2) did BU take action in reliance on that promise or was that promise
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: supported by consideration? Holding : affirm; Rule : Roy Notes : Charitable subscription – an oral or written promise to do certain acts or to give real or personal property to a charity or for a charitable purpose. To enforce a charitable subscription or a charitable pledge, a party must establish that there was a promise to give some property to a charitable institution and that the promise was supported by consideration or reliance. • Difference between consideration and reliance – reliance is not bargained-for; consideration is bargained-for. • Court – there is reliance; you could argue that there is a bargained-for exchange. •...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online