Case Briefs.Week4

Case Briefs.Week4 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week 4 F ACTS : In the presence of witness Story Sr. told his nephew Story Jr he would pay him $5,000 on his 21 st birthday if he managed to refrain from drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling until that time. The nephew did so and called his uncle to inform him of such. The uncle agreed but died before the birthday was reached. Sidway acted as Story Sr.’s executor of estate and Hamer received the rights of the note from Story Jr. Sidway refused to pay out to Hamer. I SSUE : Whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promise or a third party or is of any substantial value to any one. R ULE OF L AW : Common law A NALYSIS : In general, a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise. Any damage or suspension or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain a promise. C ONCLUSION : The court ruled that the nephew had provided legally sufficient consideration by giving up smoking, drinking, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of twenty-one and was therefore entitled to the money. F ACTS : Chris Barfield (a black man and ∏) went into a Commerce Bank branch (∆) to request change for a $50 bill. He was denied on the grounds that he did not hold an account with ∆. His father suspected racism and had a white friend make the same request. ∆ did make change for the friend despite never asking if he had an account with ∆. The next day, the father of ∏ tried to get change for a $100 bill. ∆ denied the request. ∏ filed a suit on the grounds of racial discrimination. ∆ filed a dismissal suit which was granted by the lower courts. ∏ appealed. I SSUE : Whether the Barfields’ proposal to exchange money at a bank is a contract offer in the same way as an offer to purchase doughnuts or apple juice. R ULE OF L AW : Common law, statute (Civil Rights Act of 1991) A NALYSIS : A contract must be supported by consideration in order to be enforceable. Consideration is defined as some right, interest, profit of benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, lose or responsibility given suffered, or undertaken by the other. A promised is without consideration when the promise is given by one party to another without anything being bargained for and given in exchange for it. The exchange of a large bill for a smaller bill is clearly a contract in the court’s opinion. Consideration does not need to have a quantifiable financial value. C ONCLUSION : The court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint of ∏ and remanded the case “for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.” There is consideration in an exchange of paper money as there can be in any other bargained-for exchange. F
Background image of page 1

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

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

This note was uploaded on 12/08/2011 for the course MGMT 1A taught by Professor Litt during the Spring '08 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 4

Case Briefs.Week4 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week...

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