55. Which of the following best supports the carpenter's position that the general contractor is obligated to award the carpentry subcontract to the carpenter?

A promise is supported by consideration if two things are true: (i) the promisee is giving up something of value or circumscribes his liberty in some way to suffer a legal detriment; and (ii) the promisor makes his promise as part of a bargained-for exchange for the promisee's legal detriment. The «legal detriment» aspect is mainly important where it is not clear that one party has really given anything up in the bargain. The «bargain» aspect is dispositive in situations that do not involve business dealings, such as a promise to make a gift.

One of the principal purposes of the bargain requirement is to prevent the enforcement of promises that in reality just promise to make gifts. In the ordinary case of a promise to make a gift, the promise fails to be enforceable for lack of consideration not only because the promise is not part of the bargain, but also because no legal detriment is suffered by the promisee. Even in a business context, a promise can be unenforceable because of a lack of the requisite bargaining, such as a promise to allow tenants to renew leases or any other quasi-option contract scenario.

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.

There are some promises which, although the promisor makes them without bargaining for anything in return, nonetheless induce the promisee to rely to his legal detriment. This situation is known as promissory estoppel, which arises when a promise is made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promise. Detrimental reliance arises in situations of promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration.

B is correct. The call of the question asks for the carpenter's best argument. In order for a contract to be legally enforceable, consideration must be given. Consideration must be of legal detriment to a party who had no obligation to act or refrain from action, in exchange for a legal benefit. Here, the carpenter's best argument is that he experienced a legal detriment in the form of incurring time and expense to prepare the lowest bid, giving rise to consideration. The carpenter did this in exchange for being awarded the sub-contract, if the building owners accepted the general contractor's bid.

A is incorrect. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply here, where consideration was given.

C is incorrect. The UCC requires that every contract for the sale of goods imposes an obligation of good faith, and reserves the court's right to refuse to enforce any contract it finds unconscionable. Thus, this would not be sufficient to obligate the contractor.

D is incorrect. The general contractor's duties to the owner of the building do not include an obligation to award the sub-contract to the carpenter. However, the carpenter's bid to the general contractor was likely an irrevocable offer because the general contractor reasonably relied on that sub-bid to submit his overall bid.