1. 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I H.Consideration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

2. The need for a consideration  Restatement § 17(1) The formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is … a consideration 2

3. The need for a consideration  Restatement § 17(1) The formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is … a consideration Why doesn’t it say: The parties may invoke binding contractual sanctions whenever they want? 3

4. The need for a consideration  Restatement § 17(1) The formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is … a consideration Why doesn’t it say: The parties may invoke binding contractual sanctions whenever they want? Or does it say that? 4

5. Six Questions 1.Defining Consideration: Benefit- Detriment and Bargain Tests 2.The Effect of a Seal 3.The Adequacy of Consideration and Nominal Consideration 4.Performance of Legal Obligation 5.The Past Consideration rule 6.The Relevance of Motive 7.“Mutuality of Obligation” 5

6. How to define consideration?  Benefit-detriment  Bargain theory 6

7. Defining consideration  Hamer v. Sidway at 43 7

8. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 8 The nephew was going to the dogs…

9. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 9  What is the benefit-detriment standard?

10. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 10  What is the benefit-detriment standard?  The promisor can satisfy this with either a Benefit to promisor or a third party Detriment to promisee

11. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 11  What kind of a Benefit is needed?

12. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 12  What kind of a Detriment is needed?

13. Hamer v. Sidway at 43  Restatement 71(3)(b). The performance may consist of … a forbearance Need this be costly? 13

14. Hamer v. Sidway at 43 14  What is the benefit-detriment standard? Can you suggest why the uncle might have intended that the promise be legally enforceable?

15. Kirksey at 132  Why did Isaac invite Antillico to Talladega county? 15

16. Kirksey at 132  Why did Isaac invite Antillico to Talladega county? A benefit to Isaac? 16

17. Kirksey at 132  Why did Isaac invite Antillico to Talladega county? A detriment to Antillico? 17

18. Kirksey at 132  Why did Isaac invite Antillico to Talladega county? Williston’s tramp at 134? 18

19. Kirksey at 132  In Hammer did the uncle intend legal liability? 19

20. Kirksey at 132  Do you think Isaac intended legal liability? Why might he not? 20

21. Benefit-Detriment  Do the cases up to now fit under the benefit-detriment standard? Hamer v. Sidway (consideration) Kirksey (no consideration) 21

22. St. Peter v. Pioneer at 45  Why didn’t the theatre restrict bank night to paying patrons? 22

23. St. Peter v. Pioneer  What were Pioneer’s arguments? 23

24. St. Peter v. Pioneer  How was the Π to accept? 24

25. St. Peter v. Pioneer  How was the Π to accept? Unilateral and Bilateral contracts 25

26. St. Peter v. Pioneer  Can you articulate why the theatre might have wanted the promise to be binding? 26

27. St. Peter v. Pioneer  Can you articulate why the theatre might have wanted the promise to be binding? Recall Lefkowitz 27

28. St. Peter v. Pioneer  Can you articulate why the theatre might have wanted the promise to be binding? Williston’s tramp at 134?  A Benefit to Pioneer? 28

29. St. Peter v. Pioneer  “The requested acts were bargained for” Restatement § 72: “Any promise which is bargained for is consideration” 29

30. The Bargain Theory  How would you define bargains? 30

31. The Bargain Theory  How would you define bargains?  The promisor must seek the consideration in exchange for his promise 31

32. The Bargain Theory  How would you define bargains? Is it broader or narrower than the benefit/detriment theory? 32

33. The Bargain Theory  How would you define it? You and I want to set a date for lunch but quarrel over the date. Is this bargaining? 33

34. The Bargain Theory  Do the cases up to now all fit under the bargain standard? Hamer v. Sidway (consideration) St. Peter (consideration) Kirksey (no consideration) 34

35. What is the role of intention to create legal relations? 35  Restatement § 21: Neither real nor apparent intention that a promise be legally binding is essential to the formation of a contract, but a manifestation of intention that a promise shall not affect legal relations may prevent the formation of a contract.

36. 36 George Mason School of Law Contracts I H.Consideration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

37. Six Questions 1.The Effect of a Seal 2.The Adequacy of Consideration and Nominal Consideration 3.Performance of Legal Obligation 4.The Past Consideration rule 5.The Relevance of Motive 6.“Mutuality of Obligation” 37

38. What if there’s no bargain: Gratuitous Promises  Uncle Ebenezer might want to bind himself? So how does he do so? 38

39. What if there’s no bargain: Gratuitous Promises  Uncle Ebenezer might want to bind himself? So how does he do so? 39

40. What if there’s no bargain: Gratuitous Promises  Actual gifts (as opposed to promises) are effective if:  Donative intent (animus donandi), and  Delivery by donor, and  Acceptance by donee 40

41. What if there’s no bargain: Gratuitous Promises  What constitutes delivery by donor?  Actual delivery of gift  Constructive delivery (e.g. key to car or house)  Deed of gift 41

42. Gratuitous Promises and Contracts under seal 42

43. The seal 43  Definition: Restatement § 96: “a manifestation in tangible and conventional form”  Effect of seal: Restatement § 95(1)(a): “binding without consideration if it is in writing and sealed”

44. The decay of formality 44

45. Abolition of seals 45  UCC 2-203  Abolition in half the states

46. Adequacy  Would courts ever look at an imbalance in the value of the respective considerations? 46

47. Adequacy  Restatement § 79. ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION. If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of (a) a gain, advantage, or benefit to the promisor or a loss, disadvantage, or detriment to the promisee; or (b) equivalence in the values exchanged 47

48. Wolford v. Powers 145  What was the consideration from the Wolfords? 48

49. “Be it ever so small” Sturlyn v. Albany at 142  Peppercorn theory: “The value of all things contracted for is measured by the appetite of the contractors, and therefore the just value is that which they contracted to give” Pollock (quoting Hobbes) 49

50. 50 We saw subjective value before… Mary Bess A   B C D E  F     G 50

51. Re Greene at 135  What did the agreement specify as the consideration? 51

52. Re Greene at 135  “for one dollar and other good and valuable consideration” Why didn’t that work? 52

53. Re Greene at 135  “for one dollar and other good and valuable consideration” Why didn’t that work? What if they had added “the receipt and adequacy thereof is hereby acknowledged” And provided a cheque for that amount? 53

54. Re Greene at 135  What about the fact that the contract was under seal? 54

55. Re Greene at 135  What do you think was going on here? 55

56. Schnell v. Nell at 151  What was the consideration? 56

57. Schnell v. Nell at 146  A promise of $600 to honor wife’s promise in will consideration of: Promise in will $0.01 love and affection for deceased wife 57

58. Schnell v. Nell at 146  A promise of $600 to honor wife’s promise in will consideration of: Promise in will one cent love and affection for deceased wife  What about the moral obligation to honor his wife’s wishes? Causa vs. consideration 58

59. Schnell v. Nell at 146  A promise of $600 to honor wife’s promise in will consideration of: Promise in will one cent love and affection for deceased wife  Do you think the promisor intended to be legally bound? 59

60. Schnell v. Nell at 146  So we don’t worry about inadequate consideration, but do worry about “nominal” consideration (?!?) 60

61. Batsakis at 143  Why did they structure the contract as a loan of $2,000 at 8 per cent? 61

62. Batsakis at 139  25 days later 62 Athens, April 27 1942

63. Batsakis 139  Why did they structure the contract as a loan of $2,000 at 8 per cent? Is there really a problem of adequacy here? 63

64. If it’s not about adequacy, what is the point of consideration?  Lon Fuller at 140 64

65. Lon Fuller on Consideration 140  The evidentiary function  Evidence of what? 65

66. Lon Fuller on Consideration  The evidentiary function  The deterrent function a check against rash promises 66

67. Lon Fuller on Consideration  The evidentiary function  The deterrent function  The channeling function “channels for the legally effective expression of intention” Formalism 67

68. Formalism: What’s the point of…  Seals  Consideration  Writing and signatures 68

69. Lon Fuller on Consideration  Does all this simply come down to the intention to be legally bound? 69 Is that all there is?

70. The relevance of an intention to be legally bound?  Restatement §21. INTENTION TO BE LEGALLY BOUND. Neither real nor apparent intention that a promise be legally binding is essential to the formation of a contract 70

71. Promises of a Reward  A reward is offered for apprehension of a thief, and an ordinary citizen catches the thief Is there a consideration? 71

72. Performance of Prior Legal Obligation  A reward is offered for apprehension of a thief. In performance of his duties, a policeman catches the thief Is there a consideration? 72

73. Performance of Prior Legal Obligation  Restatement §73. PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL DUTY. Performance of a legal duty owed to a promisor which is neither doubtful nor the subject of honest dispute is not consideration; but a similar performance is consideration if it differs from what was required by the duty in a way which reflects more than a pretense of bargain. 73

74. Performance of Prior Legal Obligation  Why is this a sensible policy? 74

75. What’s wrong with a public official charging for services? 75 I don’t get it…

76. What about the proviso?  Restatement §73. PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL DUTY. Performance of a legal duty owed to a promisor which is neither doubtful nor the subject of honest dispute is not consideration; but a similar performance is consideration if it differs from what was required by the duty in a way which reflects more than a pretense of bargain. 76

77. The past consideration doctrine  I volunteer to do some work for you, without pay. Subsequently you promise to make a gift to me. Can my prior work for you satisfy the consideration requirement? 77

78. Past Consideration Doctrine  Restatement 86(1)(1) A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.  (2) A promise is not binding under Subsection (1): (a) if the promisee conferred the benefit as a gift or for other reasons the promisor has not been unjustly enriched; or (b) to the extent that its value is disproportionate to the benefit. 78

79. Past Consideration Doctrine  Restatement 82(1): A promise to pay all or part of an antecedent contractual … indebtedness is binding if the indebtedness is still enforceable 79

80. Past Consideration Doctrine  Restatement 82(1): A promise to pay all or part of an antecedent contractual … indebtedness is binding if the indebtedness is still enforceable or would be except for the effect of a statute of limitations 80

81. Past Consideration Doctrine  Restatement 83: An express promise to pay all or part of an indebtedness of the promisor discharged or dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings brought before the promise is made, is binding 81

82. Does the promisee’s motive matter?  Williams v. Carwardine Why did she identify the murderer? 82

83. Does the promisee’s motive matter?  Williams v. Carwardine  Timor mortis conturbat me The status of dying declarations 83

84. Does the promisee’s motive matter?  Williams v. Carwardine  What is assumpsit? 84

85. Why does Restatement 81 make sense?  Restatement § 81(1). Consideration as Motive or Inducing Cause.The fact that what is bargained for does not of itself induce the making of a promise does not prevent it from being consideration for the promise. 85

86. Mutuality of Obligation  Either both are bound or neither is bound 86

87. Mutuality of Obligation  Either both are bound or neither is bound Bilateral contracts, sed qu. unilateral contracts like Carlill 87

88. Mutuality of Obligation  See Restatement § 79: If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of (c) "mutuality of obligation." 88