Agreements Lacking Consideration: Gift Promises
This lesson takes a look at one type of agreement that lacks consideration: gift promises.
This lesson takes a look at one type of agreement that lacks consideration: gift promises.
This podcast considers when agreements are not enforceable as contracts because they are not supported by consideration due to the fact that the promise is a gift. Analyzing hypotheticals, the podcast examines common situations involving gift promises, including conditional gifts, and charitable promises. Cases discussed include Schnell v. Nell, 17 Ind. 29 (1861) and Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891).
This lesson takes a look at two types of agreements that lack consideration: those supported by past consideration or moral obligation. Consideration is often described as the bargained-for-exchange. The bargained-for-exchange is what induces the making of the promise by the offeror and the promise induces the furnishing of the consideration by the offeree. Consideration is the ordinary means for justifying the enforcement of the promises by the parties. Where consideration was given in the past or the promisee is only morally obligated to make the promise, bargained-for-exchange is lacking and the promises are not enforceable.
This podcast explains when agreements are not enforceable as contracts because they are not supported by consideration due to the fact that the promise is based on past action or a moral obligation. It also presents common situations involving past consideration, including the exception provided under the material benefit rule. The cases Mills v. Wyman and Webb v. McGowin are discussed.
This lesson covers one of the fundamental components of contract formation - mutuality of obligation or commitment. Students learn why mutuality of obligation is an essential element of a contract.
This lesson is about satisfaction clauses. This is an area of special concern, as satisfaction clauses appear to make promises illusory.
This lesson addresses a number of issues involving consideration, including whether there was a bargain, whether there is consideration for the settlement of a claim, and whether one of the promises was illusory. You should run it after you have run the lesson on Consideration: The Basics of Consideration and the Bargain Theory.
This lesson assumes students are familiar with the requirement of consideration. This exercise covers one of the exceptions to this general rule. Historically, one situation where consideration was not required to create a binding contract was when the promise was made "under seal." The lesson explains the history of "the seal" and the seal's role in contract law today.
This lesson assumes you are familiar with the requirement of consideration and the rule that past consideration is not good consideration. Ordinarily, a promise is legally binding only if that promise is supported by a consideration. As the student may recall, "past consideration" is a misnomer. If a party makes a promise to pay for a benefit previously conferred, there is no consideration for the promise because the benefit was not bargained for in exchange for the promise. This lesson covers one of the exceptions to this general rule.
This lesson explores the remedy of reliance, which can be available both 1) where there is no contract and 2) where there is a contract and the non-breaching party chooses an alternative to the expectancy measure of damages. The lesson can be run either as an introduction to reliance or as a review after you have completed your study.
The topic of this podcast is when agreements that are not enforceable as contracts because they are not supported by consideration are nevertheless enforceable due to reliance on the promise, often referred to as promissory estoppel. It discusses reliance as it pertains to gift promises, including charitable donations. The podcast examines the rule for promissory estoppel, as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90, as well as the form of remedy permitted in cases based upon reliance. To illustrate, the podcast uses several hypotheticals and looks at the following cases: Kirksey v. Kirksey, Ricketts v. Scothorn, and Bouton v. Byers.
Overview of defenses to the formation of a contract.