Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
15. Does the daughter, after rejecting a tendered return of the $3,000 by her father, have an action against him for breach of contract?
An automobile retailer had an adult daughter who needed a car in her employment but had only $3,000 with which to buy one. The retailer wrote to his daughter, «Give me your $3,000 and I'll give you the car on our lot that we have been using as a demonstrator.» The daughter thanked her father and paid him the $3,000. As both the retailer and his daughter knew, the demonstrator was reasonably worth $10,000. After the daughter had paid the $3,000, but before the car had been delivered to her, one of retailer's sales staff sold and delivered the same car to a customer for $10,000. Neither the salesperson nor the customer was aware of the transaction between the retailer and his daughter.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A promise will be found to be supported by consideration if two things are true: (i) the promise must benefit the promisor OR be a detriment to the promisee (i.e., the promisee is giving up something of value or circumscribes his liberty in some way to suffer a «legal detriment»); and (ii) there is a bargained-for exchange between the parties (i.e., the promisor makes his promise in exchange for the promisee's legal detriment).
The «legal detriment» element is commonly at issue in cases where it is unclear whether one party has really given anything up in the bargain. Courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the detriment to evaluate the effectiveness of the consideration offered. As long as the promisee suffers some detriment, no matter how small, the court will not find consideration lacking merely because what the promisee gave up was of much less value than what he received.
A is correct. Even though the retailer promised a car worth $10,000 to his daughter in exchange for only $3,000, the contract was supported by consideration. Consideration is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for the promise. Courts do not inquire into the «adequacy» of the detriment to evaluate the effectiveness of the consideration. As long as the promisee suffers some detriment, no matter how small, the court will not determine that consideration is lacking simply because the promisee gave up something of less value than what he received. In other words, even if one could argue that the retailer's promise to sell a car worth $10,000 to his daughter in exchange for $3,000 was an unequal bargain, a court will still find that this was bargained-for consideration. The promisor/retailer is promising to sell a vehicle and receiving $3,000 in real money, and the promisee/daughter is giving up $3,000 in exchange for the car.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The daughter does have an action for breach of contract against her father, but not because his promise was supported by «moral obligation» relating to their familial relationship. The relationship between them is irrelevant to the fact that proper consideration supported the contract that they entered into, and on that basis, it will be enforceable by the daughter.
C is incorrect. Courts do not inquire into the adequacy of considerations exchanged. Even where the promisee's detriment is significantly less than the promisor's, it will constitute adequate consideration supporting the promise.
D is incorrect. The fact that the car was sold to a third party does not discharge the retailer's contractual obligation to sell the car to his daughter, although the daughter may be limited to recovering monetary damages.