Contracts Consideration

no, because the city employee had a pre-existing duty to return the animal

(pre-existing legal duty)
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 21
Terms in this set (21)
no, because the city employee had a pre-existing duty to return the animal

(pre-existing legal duty)
a city employee works for the Department of Animal Control, which is in charge of catching stray dogs and taking the animals to a facility to be euthanized. Before eithanizing the animals, the Dept's policy is to attempt to find the owner of the animal and reunite them. one day a dog owner was accidentally separated from his dog. The owner posted notices of a reward of $5k for the return of his pet. The owner also notified the Dept. of Animal Control that the dog was lost. The city employee found the owner's dog. Because the owner had informed the Dept. of the missing animal, the employee was then able to contact the owner and return the dog.

Can the city employee claim the $5k reward?
no, because there was a fully negotiated express contract between the lawyer and the client

(adequacy of consideration)
A client enters into a signed and written agreement with a lawyer in which the lawyer promises to represent the client in a divorce proceeding in return for the client's promise to make one payment of $3,000 to be due when the divorce is granted. The agreement—drafted by the lawyer—provides that the lawyer will make all of necessary court appearances, file all necessary paperwork, and otherwise do all of the legal work necessary until the court grants the divorce. The $3,000 is the lawyer's normal rate for the average divorce. The lawyer, however, miscalculated how much time it would take for this particular divorce. The fair market value of the legal services that the lawyer provided was $20,000. When the court grants the divorce, the client presents the lawyer with a check for $3,000.
Will the lawyer be successful if he refuses the $3,000 check as full payment and instead sues the client for the fair market value of $20,000?
yes, because the settlement agreement is supported by consideration

(pre-existing legal duty rule and accord and satisfaction [type of settlement agreement])
A company is in the business of manufacturing high-end pots and pans. It hires a consultant to build a website for a payment of $20,000. The contract provides that the consultant must finish the website by September 1; however, the payment will not be due until October 1. The consultant finishes the website in a competent manner by September 1. However, the company informs the consultant that because of lower than expected sales, it will not be able to pay the $20,000 by October 1. After some negotiations, the parties enter into a settlement agreement under which the consultant will cancel the $20,000 debt the company owes in return for $17,000 worth of the company's pots and pans to be given to the consultant by September 15. The company agrees to the change and both parties sign an agreement to that effect. On September 15, the company is ready to transfer $17,000 worth of pots and pans to the contractor; however, the contractor now insists on receiving the $20,000.
Will the company be able to enforce the settlement agreement?
the furniture maker is not obligated to purchase a quantity that is unreasonably disproportionate from the previous output of 100k board feet

(outputs contracts under UCC 2-306)
A high-end furniture maker uses a particular type of wood called "curly maple" to make its furniture. To make sure that it has a sufficient supply of curly maple wood, the furniture maker enters into a contract with a lumber company. The contract provides that the furniture maker will purchase and the lumber company will sell all of the curly maple that the lumber company produces for five years at a specific price. For the first two years, the lumber company produces 100,000 board feet of curly maple a year, which the furniture company purchases. For the third year, the lumber company thinks that it can produce up to 200,000 board feet of curly maple.
Which the following best describes the rights and duties of the parties?
yes, because the investor's risk in losing the investment justifies receiving a greater reward

(adequacy of consideration)
A miner owns a silver mine. It is uncertain how much silver is contained in the mine, but the miner honestly thinks there could be as much as $60 million in silver. The miner borrows $500,000 from an investor to purchase equipment necessary to mine the silver. In a detailed and signed writing, the miner promises to pay the investor $20 million in return for his investment once the silver has been mined and sold.
Is the $500,000 investment consideration for the future promise of $20 million?
the manufacturer's offer was deemed irrevocable until September 30

(merchant's firm offer rules of UCC 2-205)
A real estate developer wished to purchase coin-operated washing machines and dryers for laundry rooms in its residential properties. After some negotiation with a manufacturer of washing machines, the manufacturer provided the developer with a signed and written offer letter that stated that the manufacturer would sell and install up to 500 washing machines and 500 dryers of a certain make and model at a price of $300 each. The offer letter was dated July 1 and stated that the offer would be held open until September 30. Before making the sale, the developer wanted to shop around, although it was not able to find a better deal. On September 1, the manufacturer told the developer that it would now have to charge $350 for each machine since the developer took two months to decide. The developer immediately sent an acceptance of the manufacturer's July 1 offer placing an order for 500 washing machines and 500 dryer at $300 each. The manufacturer refused to honor the July 1 offer.
If the developer sues the manufacturer for breach of contract and the developer wins it will probably be because:
no, because neither party's promise was 'bargained for'

(bargained-for exchange, contract form)
Ana and Betty are roommates. Ana says to Betty, 'I am going to clean out the front closet today.' Betty responds, 'That's nice of you. In exchange, I'll clean out the back closet today.'
Have Ana and Betty made enforceable promises to clean their respective closets?
Yes, because the Seller sold Buyer an enforceable option to purchase the real estate

(enforceability of option agreements)
By signed writing, Seller and Buyer agree that Buyer will pay Seller a nonrefundable $1,000, and Seller, for two months, will hold open an offer to sell her a parcel of real property for the price of $1 million, which is the fair market value of the property. Buyer then pays Seller $1,000. One month later, Buyer tells Seller that Buyer wants to accept the offer and purchase the land. Buyer tenders a cashier's check for $1 million in accordance with the terms of the offer, but Seller refuses to convey title to the property.
Is Seller in breach of contract?
Yes, because Dealer agreed to modify the contract in a signed writing

(UCC 2-209 governs since this is a sale of a good. If UCC did not apply, this attempted modification would be ineffective)
Dealer is a truck dealer. A trucking company sent a written and signed offer to Dealer offering to purchase ten trucks (model X100) for $500,000. The offer included delivery dates and payment terms. Dealer responded in a signed writing accepting the trucking company's offer. Before delivery of the trucks could be arranged, the trucking company sent Dealer an email that stated, "We made a clerical error in our original offer as to the model of trucks. We meant to order the X200 model trucks for a total of $500,000. Can we make that change?" Dealer responded in a signed writing and stated, "That's fine. We'll deliver ten model X200 trucks at the same price as agreed upon." However, on the date of delivery, Dealer only delivered model X100 trucks and refused to deliver the X200.
Has Dealer breached the contract?
farmer wins, because there was no consideration for the bonus (past consideration)
Farmer decides to retire from farming. Employee, who had worked for Farmer for ten years, is interested in purchasing Farmer's tractor. The tractor is valued at $26,000, which is about the same amount as Employee earned in one year. Farmer intends to give Employee a bonus for the past year. After some discussion between the two parties, Farmer provides Employee with a signed writing that states, "In consideration of his long time employment, I promise to give my tractor to Employee." Farmer, however, later refuses to transfer title of the tractor to Employee.
If Employee attempts to sue for breach of contract, which of the following is the most likely result?
yes, because the consideration for Nat's promise is Odessa's promise (is there consideration for the promise)Nat and Odessa are friends. Nat says to Odessa, "I'd like you to be exposed to classical music. If you promise to attend tomorrow night's Chopin concert, I will reimburse you for your ticket." Odessa replied, "Yes, thank you. I'll go to the concert." Odessa paid for a ticket and attended the concert; however, Nat refused to reimburse her for the cost of her ticket. Has Nat breached a contractual promise?no, because the mechanic's promise to perform is illusory (mechanic has reserved the right to not perform the contract. Since she has not made any commitment, her promise is illusory. Since there is no consideration for the owner's promise, he may terminate the agreement)On May 9, an owner of an airplane and a mechanic enter a signed agreement under which the mechanic will rebuild the owner's airplane engine in return a payment of $30,000. Among other terms, the written agreement provides that (1) on or before May 15, the owner will pay the mechanic a 'first third' of the total fee, $10,000, and (2) on May 16, the mechanic will begin her work. The document's last paragraph provides that 'If at any time, in her sole discretion, the mechanic decides that she does not wish to perform the duties hereinabove described, then she need not do so.' On May 14, the owner advises the mechanic that he has decided not to have his engine rebuilt, that he will not pay the mechanic, and that the mechanic should not, therefore, begin her work. The mechanic responds, insisting that she stands ready to perform the work and that she expects to be paid for it. Does the mechanic have viable cause of action against the owner for breach of contract?the predominant purpose of the transaction was for the sale of goods (UCC or not)Owner wanted to install solar panels on his house and went to Sam's Solar Store to discuss the cost. After discussing Owner's requirements, Sam said that he would sell the panels and do the installation for a total cost of $20,000. Owner said that he was not ready to make a decision and needed to look around. Sam said that he would guarantee that price for 30 days. Sam wrote out the details of the offer on a sheet of his company's stationery, including the phrase "price guaranteed for 30 days." He included a breakdown of the cost of the panels, equipment, etc., and the installation. Sam signed and dated the paper and handed it to Owner. Within the 30-day deadline, Owner returned to Sam's store with the intent to accept the offer. Before Owner said anything, Sam said "I can't go through with the price I gave you. The cost of panels has gone up considerably. I have to charge you $30,000." Owner said, "I accept your original offer." However, Sam refused to do the work for the original price and said, "It's $30,000. You can take it or leave it." If Owner sues Sam for breach of contract and a court finds in favor of Owner, it is probably because the court determined that:retail store prevails because the offer was not revoked before acceptance (Merchant's firm offer, UCC 2-205)Seller is a manufacturer of beach umbrellas. On January 1, Seller sent the following signed email to Retail Store, "It is never too early to plan for the summer buying season. We are now offering a guaranteed discount price of $15 each on our beach umbrellas provided that you make a minimum order of 100 umbrellas. You must order the umbrellas by May 1; otherwise, this offer terminates." On April 30, Retail Store phoned Seller and told them that they wanted to purchase 100 umbrellas at the $15 price." Seller responded, "Sorry, but we ran out. You should have ordered earlier. You snooze, you lose." If Retail Store sues Seller for breach of contract what is the likely result?enforce the promise as an option contract supported by considerationStan and Barbara are neighbors. On April 15, Stan told Barbara he was planning to sell his car. Barbara said she might be interested in buying it. After discussion, Barbara paid Stan $100 in cash and Stan signed a document which contained the following language: 'For $100 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, I hereby offer to sell my car to Barbara at a price of $5,000 and promise to hold this offer open until June 1. If Barbara decides to purchase the vehicle, the $100 which I have received from her shall be applied to the purchase price. If Barbara does not decide to purchase the vehicle, I will keep the $100.' On May 15, Barbara informed Stan that she had borrowed money from her parents and had decided to buy the car, but Stan said that he had already sold the car to someone else. If Barbara asserts a claim against Stan based on Stan's promise to keep the offer open until June 1, the court should:Uncle will win, because the consideration promised by Niece was the pretense of a bargain (adequacy of consideration)Uncle wants to make a binding promise to give Niece a gift of his $100,000 grandfather's clock when she turns 30 in two years. Uncle discusses the matter with Niece and they agree to make the promise look as if Niece has purchased the clock. Uncle provides Niece with a signed writing that states, "In consideration of $10 to be paid by Niece, I promise that when Niece reaches her thirtieth birthday I will convey to Niece my grandfather's clock.' Later, Uncle decides not to convey the grandfather clock to Niece. If Niece sues for breach of contract, what is the likely result?moral duty and legal dutymoral duty and/or legal duty?: A sends a check to B by mistake. Or A takes B to the hospital by ambulance. B has ________________ to pay A back even without promising to do so (unjust enrichment- restitution)no moral or legal obligationmoral duty and/or legal duty?: A gives a birthday gift to B. B has ____________ to repay Aaccordan agreement to compromise or settle the disputesatisfactionperformance of the accordstatute of frauds unfair or one sided bargains (duress, unconscionability, fraud) illusory contracts legal duty rule contracts against public policylimits on the bargain principle