Top Law Schools

A jockey is under contract to race a horse for the owner, but the owner of the horse subsequently offers to pay the jockey an additional $10,000 if he wins a race. This would not be enforceable because the jockey already has a contractual duty to the owner to try to win the race. Now suppose I offer the jockey $10,000 to win a race (I'm not the owner), because I have a bet on his horse? He has no legal duty to me. Clearly, I will benefit if he wins.

Enforceable?
Any cases to cite to?

Does the jockey promise to race? If so, then enforceable (he is losing his right of forbearance to race). If you simply say "if you win, i'll give you $10,000" and he was planning on racing anyway, you could revoke it before the race starts (RST 2d sec 45 states that once performance begins in a unilateral K you cannot revoke your offer) However if you revoked, and he filed suit, you would argue he incurred no legal detriment because he did what he was going to do anyway.

Ditto, the extra $10000 is a gratuitous promise. The jockey gains nothing by accepting to do what he was already going to do. But are you sure you have the hypo right? Because a couple of weeks ago we got one where the jockey was offered $10000 by a different owner of a different horse to lose on purpose. And the question was who (if anyone) would have a right to action under various circumstances.

Thanks for the input Bustang and Gatorbait!

@Gatorbait, yes the fact pattern and circumstances are correct. That is a very interesting twist in the hypo presented in your class. What was the outcome?

He is already contractually obligated to try and win the race. It doesn't matter if his owner offers him an additional $10,000 if he wins or if you offer him the money. It can't be a bargained-for exchange since the pre-existing duty rule precludes this. Had he not been participating in the race and you offered him 10K to win, thats a totally different story. But you can't bargain for his pre-existing duty.

Another example that completely parallels this would be if my parents called me up today and said they will offer me $10,000 if I get all A's in my first semester (lets put aside the discussion of family agreements and their enforceability). I, like everyone else here, was already shooting for A's. My pursuit of A's was not induced by my parent's offer, so it can't be consideration in the modern sense of a bargained-for exchange. Each side's promise or action must mutually induce the promise or action of the other.

For some cases regarding pre-existing duty, read Davis & Co. v. Morgan or Stilk v. Myrick. Both of these cases explicate the pre-existing duty rule and how prior obligations do not constitute consideration.

Hope this helps!

dakatz wrote: Another example that completely parallels this would be if my parents called me up today and said they will offer me $10,000 if I get all A's in my first semester (lets put aside the discussion of family agreements and their enforceability). I, like everyone else here, was already shooting for A's. My pursuit of A's was not induced by my parent's offer, so it can't be consideration in the modern sense of a bargained-for exchange. Each side's promise or action must mutually induce the promise or action of the other.

To be fair, you could just try to barely pass. Or you have the right to just fail if you want. Jockeys are contracted to try to win.

Is this jockey really contracted to win? I'd at least bring up the ambiguity. As far as your betting, I'm not sure that is valid consideration (go into why it might be and why it might not).

Bankhead wrote:Is this jockey really contracted to win?

I'd argue that an implied term here is to try his best to win, I guess. Maybe not "win" per se.

rad law wrote:

dakatz wrote: Another example that completely parallels this would be if my parents called me up today and said they will offer me $10,000 if I get all A's in my first semester (lets put aside the discussion of family agreements and their enforceability). I, like everyone else here, was already shooting for A's. My pursuit of A's was not induced by my parent's offer, so it can't be consideration in the modern sense of a bargained-for exchange. Each side's promise or action must mutually induce the promise or action of the other.

To be fair, you could just try to barely pass. Or you have the right to just fail if you want. Jockeys are contracted to try to win.

Again, like anyone in some sort of competition, we're operating under the assumption that one tries wholly and completely to win. You are right that, if i am a slacker, and my parents offer me 10K in order to completely overhaul my study habits and make me work harder, then that is consideration, since there is a modification of my pre-existing duty.

As for the jockey, the same applies. If for some reason he is expected to give some half-ass effort and not really train hard for the race, but is given 10K to work harder, that is a modification of his pre-existing duty. But again, if we are operating under the assumption that one doesn't compete unless one is trying to win, then its pretty concrete.

dakatz wrote: As for the jockey, the same applies. If for some reason he is expected to give some half-ass effort and not really train hard for the race, but is given 10K to work harder, that is a modification of his pre-existing duty. But again, if we are operating under the assumption that one doesn't compete unless one is trying to win, then its pretty concrete.

I'd argue the above, that absent special circumstances, people contract jockeys to try to win. It's implied. But yeah, I see what you're saying, too. If it were an exam, I'd write both.

There are cases out there establishing that modifications to contracts don't require consideration. Otherwise many reasonable modifications would be unenforceable by being viewed as unilateral through a consideration/bargaining lens. Here the argument would be that a term was modified by mutual assent rather than the creation of a new unenforceable contract.

disco_barred wrote:There are cases out there establishing that modifications to contracts don't require consideration. Otherwise many reasonable modifications would be unenforceable by being viewed as unilateral through a consideration/bargaining lens. Here the argument would be that a term was modified by mutual assent rather than the creation of a new unenforceable contract.

Ah, haven't gotten there yet.

oh my jesus christ this class is going to kill me

betasteve wrote:

rad law wrote:

dakatz wrote: As for the jockey, the same applies. If for some reason he is expected to give some half-ass effort and not really train hard for the race, but is given 10K to work harder, that is a modification of his pre-existing duty. But again, if we are operating under the assumption that one doesn't compete unless one is trying to win, then its pretty concrete.

I'd argue the above, that absent special circumstances, people contract jockeys to try to win. It's implied. But yeah, I see what you're saying, too. If it were an exam, I'd write both.

This is closer. There is an implied duty of good faith in performance in every K.

As to the OP, see McDevitt v. Stokes, 192 S.W. 681 (Ky. 1917).

Validated by beta? My day's off to a good start.

clintonius wrote:oh my jesus christ this class is going to kill me

LoL, it's really not that bad at all, as long as you keep your string of rules in order. You simply go down a checklist to see if it meets certain criteria. If not, keep going, when you find it. Lay out an example why, a counter for why not, conclude it and you're done!