{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Fiege v. Boehm - Rational Fiege still has to pay for the...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fiege v. Boehm 210 Md. 352 (1956) Fact: Operative Facts: Boehm wanted Fiege to pay for a breach of contract to pay the expenses incident to the birth of his bastard child, and provide support upon condition that she would refrain from prosecuting him for bastardy. After he paid a small portion of the requested amount, he found out that he is NOT the father of the child, and stopped paying. Issue: Whether the contract is enforceable. Rule: If the contract was made with good faith, even if the promise is based off of false (but not knowingly false) terms, then the contract can still be enforced. As long as the P has a “reasonable” basis of support of winning (A chance of winning).
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rational: Fiege still has to pay for the breach of contract, because there was consideration. They agreed, for Fiege to give up a sum of $2,895.80 for Boehm to forbear a lawsuit on Fiege for bastardy. Boehm giving up her rights to sue, when at the time, both had reasonable expectation that Fiege was the father. After the fact was found that he isn’t the father, the contract was already set and in place. Holding: There is adequate consideration even if the consideration is based off of false or invalid claims, if the claim is made in good faith, and was subjectively, and objectively thought to be true, or at most, doubtful. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online