Contracts Outline – NYU – Scott – Fall 2007
This outline contains 18 pages and was prepared for Professor Scott’s Fall 2007 contracts course at NYU. After placing your order you will immediately receive an email containing links that will enable you to download the outline in both DOC and PDF format. You may download both files as many times as you wish for 72 hours.
B. Consideration
1. Hamer v. Sidway
Uncle promised nephew $5000 if he abstained from drink, smoke, and gambling until age 21
There must be a benefit or detriment to find consideration.
Detriment to nephew: circumscribed freedom of action.
2. Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil (1960)
Lessor’s promise ? contract. No consideration: delay in filing suit is not equal to forbearance.
Restatement (2d) of Contracts §1: contract = promise that is a duty or breach of law – remedy
Consideration is essential evidence of parties’ intent to create a contract
Bargain theory of consideration: contract must be product of bargain
Bargain = voluntary assumption of obligation conditioned on an act of forbearance
§2: promise = assurance that a thing will (not) be done
No need to use benefit/detriment (makes no difference)
3. Dougherty v. Salt – Gift Promises
aunt promises to give boy $3K
no consideration – “Nothing is consideration that is not regarded as such by both parties” promise was not offered or accepted with any other purpose
voluntary and unenforceable promise of executory gift
why are gifts not enforced?
• too easy to fraud, difficult to distinguish from present intent
• made in emotional state
• excused by other conduct (e.g. kid acting bad)
4. Batsakis v. Demotsis – Adequacy of Consideration
Greek citizen lends another $25 in exchange for a $2000 promissory note
enforceable despite gross disparity
court will not inquire into “adequacy of consideration”
mere inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract
§79: adequacy of consideration
no requirement of “equivalence in the values exchanged,” mutuality of obligation
might relate to duress, fraud, etc. – none here (//Park 100) b/c
not the other party but general economic forces made him accept
movement away from willingness to police fairness of bargains (Horwitz)
5. Plowman v. Indian Refining Co. – Past Consideration
Employer laid off workers, promised to pay them ½ wages for life.
they just had to pick up checks…payments cut off
no consideration found in:
• years of prior service – “past consideration is no consideration”
• travel – merely an enabling condition
e.g. Williston’s tramp going to corner to pick up coat
• morality of promise (there are arguments against this)
Only employees benefited.