Select Page

Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Kettle, John R.

„ Bailey v. West (RISC, 1969): Lame horse, Bailey cared for 4Y, billed both. • No implied contract because no mutual agreement or intent to promise for W to pay B. Source of obligation in implied contract is intention to be bound by conduct, not words. No quasi-contract because Bailey volunteered at own risk, West not UE.

„ Bolin Farms v. Amer. Cotton Shippers (USDC, 1974): BF sell/deliver all cotton to ACS at fixed price range, forward contract. Cotton market big rise. • Forward sales contract valid, enforceable. ACS bears own risk in entering. BF does not guarantee quality nor quantity, should have included condition tying price to market rates.

„ Kirksey v. Kirksey (ALSC, 1845): SIL widow with children. BIL 60 miles away, wrote desiring to house SIL and children. SIL abandoned land, lived with BIL for 2Y. BIL ousted SIL. • No consideration since no bargaining for her to move, so letter was gratuitous promise only, so no breach. PE yet to exist.

„ Hamer v. Sidway (NYCOA, 1891): Uncle promised Hamer $5,000 in exchange for no bad behavior. Hamer agreed, fully performed conditions. Uncle died, did not pay any money. • Sufficient consideration was Hamer’s actions (gave up legal rights, detriment). Uncle benefitted (Hamer’s health) from Hamer’s forbearance.

„ Langer v. Superior Steel (PNICOA, 1932): SS president letter to pay Langer pension so long as not work for competitor. SS paid for 4Y, stopped. • Letter did not create enforceable contract since president had no authority to contract. Here, authority overruled PE. SS could argue impossibility.

„ Jara v. Suprema Meats (CACOA, 2004): Jara gave funds/services to Suprema, received shares, became member of board. Jara and Suprema agreed on phone to agree on future compensations. • Not enforceable because no consideration, unsolicited promise offered sans expectation of exchanged promise/performance. Not social contract because involves corporation.

„ Thomas v. Thomas (QB, 1842): Man had 7 houses, died, oral declaration to give wife either house or 100£. Wife got house, had to pay 1£ yearly, keep house in good condition. One BIL died, other turned Wife out of possession. • Consideration is Wife’s payment, maintenance. Express agreement independent of moral motive that led executors into it. No bargaining, but promised performance was newly created. More formalist.

„ Browning v. Johnson (WASC, 1967): Browning to sell practice/equipment. Browning changed mind, offered $40,000 if Johnson released him. • Original contract enforceable because Johnson detriment. No contractual out in original, new contract required to rescind.

„ Apfel v. Prudential-Bache (NYCOA, 1993): Apfel to disclose computer method with PB, keep secret. PB to pay even if becomes common knowledge or standard practice. PB paid for 3Y, stopped. • Consideration since Apfel’s method had value to PB, not novel idea but novel to PB. PB’s payments acknowledged benefit. PB should have included contractual out as allocation of risk.

„ Jones v. Star Credit Corp (NYSC, 1969): Jones bought $300 freezer for $1,200, paid part. Star wanted balance. • Unconscionable. Adhesion contract, asymmetry of bargaining power, sufficient but not adequate consideration. Star could have allocated risk by checking credit, requiring collateral, etc.

„ In re Greene (USDC, 1930): Debtor promised to marry Mistress. Relations ended, agreement for Debtor to pay $1,000 per month, $100,000 life policy, rent for 4Y. $1 consideration. Debtor paid for 2Y. • Invalid, past consideration not current consideration for contract. $1 payment nominal, could not be proven as paid nor support executory promise. Intent to contract (evidenced by document, seal) does not make enforceable.

„ Fiege v. Boehm (MDCOA, 1956): Boehm pregnant, claimed Fiege father. Fiege to pay medical, salary, support child until 21. Condition that Boehm not file paternity suit. Fiege not father, paid $480. • Original claim in good faith (honest, reasonable belief in validity of claim by both), so promise enforced.

„ Levine v. Blumenthal (NJSC, 1936): Blum 2Y lease with Levine, rent to increase in Y2. Blum business bad, could not pay Y2 rent. Levine reduced rent until business better. Blum could not pay reduced r

y, agreement supported by consideration. Omni only cancel by failing give notice if report not satisfactory, otherwise bound to give notice, purchase.

„ Mills v. Wyman (MASJC, 1825): Wyman’s 25YO son sick. Mills gave shelter, care until son died. Wyman wrote to pay care expenses, later refused. • Moral obligation only consideration in 3 cases, inapplicable here. Promise to pay only gratuitous promise, services not requested by Wyman. PE inexistent, would not apply since no reliance by promisee.

„ Webb v. McGowin (ALCOA, 1935): Webb clear mill, drop 75-lb block from upper to ground, MG below, held, fell with block to divert. MG uninjured, Webb crippled life (unable physical or mental labor). MG agree pay care for life, paid until own death, payments stopped. • Valid, enforceable; moral obligation sufficient consideration to support subsequent promise since MG received material benefit (saved from death/severe injury).

„ Harrington v. Taylor (NCSC, 1945): Wife assaulted by Taylor, fled to Harr’s, assaulted at Harr’s, to strike Taylor with axe, severely injured Harr when he caught axe to save Taylor. Taylor promised to compensate Harr for injuries, paid small amount, refused more. • Past consideration not sufficient to create binding contract. Moral obligations from past acts not sufficient to create valid promise. Promise unenforceable. Gratuitous, voluntary act in domestic setting; not workplace duty, no worker’s compensation or insurance.

„ Ricketts v. Scothorn (NESC, 1898): Grandpa said Scothorn didn’t have to work, note promised $2,000 and intereset. Scothorn quit, unemployed 1Y, got job. Grandpa died, paid 1Y interest, couldn’t pay balance. • Note was gratuitous