(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:37 pm
SwampRat88 wrote: RPK34 wrote:
AVBucks4239 wrote:Argue for X that he relied to his detriment, probably spent lots of time and some money trying to find investors, acted in reliance, these actions manifested consideration, etc. For W, argue that all of this wasn't really a detriment, very minimal financial burden, lacked consideration, etc. Talking it through and thinking for both sides will usually lead you to the right answer.
Just a heads up: don't use terms like consideration in a promissory estoppel case. Promissory estopell exists absent a consideration.
But to put it even more precisely: the absence of consideration is a prerequisite
in promissory estoppel.
Good point. The discussion of a potential option contract got me off tangent I guess.
Champion of the Sun
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:23 pm
If X drafted the option contract wouldn't the court construe it against X? If X wanted all the actions claimed to be taken in reliance of the option to be the consideration X should have explicitly stated so instead of stating "for valuable consideration"? W would argue that X mistook his motivation to sell the building as consideration and that such actions were not detrimental to X. Berryman v . Kmoch.
Return to “Forum for Law School Students”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 7 guests