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.
51. If the friend sues the man to recover the value of the book, how should the court rule?
A man sent an email to a friend that stated: «Because you have been a great friend to me, I am going to give you a rare book that I own.» The friend replied by an email that said: «Thanks for the rare book. I am going to give you my butterfly collection.» The rare book was worth $10,000; the butterfly collection was worth $100. The friend delivered the butterfly collection to the man, but the man refused to deliver the book.
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
B is incorrect. As explained above, instead of giving inadequate consideration, the friend gave no consideration at all. Accordingly, no contract arose between the parties, and the court should rule in favor of the man.
C is incorrect. Although it is true that a promisee's reliance may provide the basis for the enforcement of a promise in the absence of consideration, that principle is inapplicable here. The man's promise failed to induce reliance by the friend of the type that the man reasonably might have expected when he promised to give her the rare book. In addition, this is not a case in which injustice could only be avoided by the enforcement of the man's promise. The dispositive issue here is whether the friend's promise to give her butterfly collection to the man constituted consideration for the man's promise. There was no consideration, and the court should rule in favor of the man.
D is incorrect. The fact that a promisee confers a benefit on a promisor does not create an enforceable obligation on the part of the promisor. In this question, because the man's promise to give the rare book to the friend did not seek a return promise or performance, the friend's promise did not constitute consideration for the man's promise, and there was no contract.