Enforceable Rest.

§72 – Exchange of
Payment
Kirksey v. Kirksey Promise for Performance
CONSIDERATIO Condition to receive a that is bargained for
Not Enforceable
Act gift, and gratuitous
promises are not consid.
Forbearance (1) Promisee Must Incur Legal Detriment Rest. §79 –
Adequacy of Consid.
(2) Detriment Must Induce Promise Apfel v.
Prudential
Hamer v. Sidway (3) Promise Must Induce Detriment Thomas v. Thomas
Value to a party
Forbearance from a legal only relevant at Courts will not
right at time of promise time of contract assess consid.
In Re Greene
Jara v. Suprema Meats Good / amount, unless…
Consid. for A is not Bad Faith -
Bad Faith Nominal
consid. for B.
UCC §2-302(1) – Jones v. Star
Modifications consid.
insufficient b/c Unconscionableness; Credit Unequal
Fiege v. of possible Needs both… bargaining power
Rest. §73 – Rest. §89 – Modifications Boehm Good
Pre-Existing need new consideration faith
supersedes K Rest. §74 – Substantive: Procedural: Unfair
Modifications should be: that was Good Faith can Deal, price is bargaining power
Alaska Packer’s serve as Consid. lopsided between parties
-Voluntary
Assoc. v. in an invalid
-Unanticipated
Domenico New
-Fair & Equitable Omni v. Seattle
consid. is required
-Done in good faith Promise not Output &
for contract mod. Wood v. Lady-Duff
-K not fully performed yet illusory b/c deal
An implied duty to Requirements Ks
hinged on an
act in good faith can
objective standard
be consid.
Pre-Existing Duty Rule UCC §2.209 – & good faith 3 Safeguards:
-Discourages extortion Modifications: -Good faith
-Helps enforce the idea of New consid. -In line w/ estimate or previous
exchange through necessity UCC §2-306(2) – When
not needed, output/requirement
of future promise exclusive relationship
just agreement -Production is actual production
But… b/w dealer & buyer, legal
implication of duty to act CONSIDERATIO
-Easily circumvented with
new consid. in good faith N SUBSTITUTES Rest. §90 – P.E.
-is rigid and may impede
business
Promissory Estoppel
Unjust Enrichment
Quasi-Contract
Moral Obligation 1. There’s a promise
(Enforcement rare)
2. Expectation of reliance by the promissor to
-A confers benefit to B
promisee
Mills v. Wyman -B accepts benefit & appreciates
Rest. §86 – Promise for benefit 3. Person actually DOES rely on promise
Past actions are -Circumstances = inequitable to
received enforceable only if: 4. Reliance on promise must be reasonable by
not consideration, allow B to retain benefit w/o
-Not intended as a gift B and foreseeable by A
unless… paying (Unjust Enrichment)
-Promissor is unjustly enriched 5. Must be a detriment due to that reliance
-Value proportional to benefit 6. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing
Unless… promise
Webb v. McGowan – “Injustice” -B had no chance to decline
-Extreme benefit to B Additional P.E. Q’s
benefit (B should not have to pay Ricketts v. Scothorn
-Sever injury incurred, causing -What is A & B’s relationship?
for that which he did not ask) A mere inducement
reliance to be in effect -How wealthy is A?
can be basis for P.E.
-Ongoing payments being made -Are B’s reliance obligations
-Already being enforced for binding?
Bailey v. West
years -Etc., P.E. is knowing all the facts
Acting as volunteer in conferring All-Tech v. Amway
-Promise is in writing benefit to B that B does not ask for P.E. not applicable
and explicitly refuses when K is
Blinn v. Beatrice present/enforceabl
Congregation v. DeLeo
No promise; A did not
Gifts may be unenforceable
Condition to expect reliance on
even w/o any conditions Allegheny v.
“it”; B’s
Receive a Gift
understanding of National
(Unenforceable)
Bilateral agreement
can be enforceable
Unenforceable Detriment not Bargained for by Enforceable
even if one promise
1) A has a gift-making state of mind A to B (AKA Gratuitous 1) A has a contract-making state of mind
is only implied in
2) A only benefits from altruism/pleasure, etc. Promise) 2) A will receive a material/selfish benefit
Ex.) “If it rains tomorrow, I will give you $10.” Ex.) “You can come live in my house as a housekeeper”