Top Law Schools

Hi everyone,

Couple questions. I'm trying to figure out how to structure my exam responses and find myself confused. How exactly does consideration relate to offers as opposed to promises?

ex. if you offer me a gator for $100, and I accept promising $100, we have created a bi-k. would you also add a separate paragraph stating my detriment was the $100 for your promise or offer?

Thanks

you're going too deep there for a timed exam. or too detailed for a line limit example. hit the issue and move on. i think not moving on can really fuck you in the typical issue spotter exam.

joobacca wrote:you're going too deep there for a timed exam. or too detailed for a line limit example. hit the issue and move on. i think not moving on can really fuck you in the typical issue spotter exam.

Thanks! So for offer/acceptance avoid consideration discussion?


I was thinking it might be more applicable if determining whether there was a promise to make a gift or enforceable promise.

I guess I would say that your promise to pay $100 was consideration for the seller's promise to sell the Gator.

It's probably not that important, but to me, a statement that you paid consideration "for the offer" would imply an option K. As in, "I'll pay you $100 for the offer to sell me a Gator for $100." In this situation, you're paying a sum to have the option to accept another offer.

BCLS wrote:

joobacca wrote:you're going too deep there for a timed exam. or too detailed for a line limit example. hit the issue and move on. i think not moving on can really fuck you in the typical issue spotter exam.

Thanks! So for offer/acceptance avoid consideration discussion?


I was thinking it might be more applicable if determining whether there was a promise to make a gift or enforceable promise.

no, don't avoid consideration. that's an issue you have to hit. i'm just saying don't dedicate to a separate paragraph that goes way deep into the consideration topic, unless you can pump it very quickly, and it's relevant to the issue at hand. otherwise, move on and get more points by exploring other issues.

i would bet that if consideration is in play (that is, it warrants kind of a detailed analysis) it will only be in play once in an issue-spotter exam.

and yea, if it's applicable then include it. i guess what i'm trying to say is that don't belabor a point/beat a dead horse. there's no benefit because of the opportunity cost. this was a very costly mistake for me first semester. i would hit the max points on a given issue, but i'd miss far more because i didn't have time (or forgot about other issues in my head while just beating the hell out an issue).

BCLS wrote:

joobacca wrote:you're going too deep there for a timed exam. or too detailed for a line limit example. hit the issue and move on. i think not moving on can really fuck you in the typical issue spotter exam.

Thanks! So for offer/acceptance avoid consideration discussion?

Write for your professor. K especially is one of those classes where you really should try to know how your prof wants the exam. Some profs want you to go through a checklist for every K and discuss everything, even if the facts don't suggest there is a real issue. Others don't. It really depends. Err on the side of being inclusive.

So can you guys give me an example as to how you would structure an exam answer that has to do with offer/acceptance?

Should I stick with

1. was there an offer?

2. was it accepted?


or

1.

2.

and 3. was there consideration for the offer?

thanks guys! I guess I'm just not sure how consideration fits into the offer/acceptance arena?

ggocat wrote:

BCLS wrote:

joobacca wrote:you're going too deep there for a timed exam. or too detailed for a line limit example. hit the issue and move on. i think not moving on can really fuck you in the typical issue spotter exam.

Thanks! So for offer/acceptance avoid consideration discussion?

Write for your professor. K especially is one of those classes where you really should try to know how your prof wants the exam. Some profs want you to go through a checklist for every K and discuss everything, even if the facts don't suggest there is a real issue. Others don't. It really depends. Err on the side of being inclusive.

this is consistent with i'm saying. if a professor talks about a topic (for example, a certain remedy that he thought would have been more appropriate in a case you read), then, of course, you're going to explore that more thoroughly than other stuff. but don't try to parrot your professor. let the facts determine how you think something should be resolved (IF your professor is the type of person who wants you to resolve issues. some just want you to spot an issue, argue both sides, and move on).

you need consideration for a contract, right?
and O/A is the mechanism that forms a K/binds the parties, right?

or am i way off...?

edit: i'm talking in general terms, and not thinking about stuff like promissory estoppel.

This is where I'm confused.

An offer is technically a promise, so above my offer to sell the gator is a promise to sell it, so long as you provide $100. I think the offer would still have to be supported by consideration right? So that means you and I need to suffer a legal detriment (mine is the offer, yours is the $100 payment). Is this at all correct?

BCLS wrote:So can you guys give me an example as to how you would structure an exam answer that has to do with offer/acceptance?

Should I stick with

1. was there an offer?

2. was it accepted?


or

1.

2.

and 3. was there consideration for the offer?

You should include consideration.

This is my default method for doing so from a practice exam. It takes like five seconds.

There was consideration (benefit to the promisor OR detriment to the promisee AND bargained for exchange) for the promise. The promisee, A, would give the Promisor, B, money for services provided (something not required by law and as such, a detriment). The bargained-for-exchange was the exchange of services provided for money (The promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must be the inducement for the promise).

OGR3 wrote:

BCLS wrote:So can you guys give me an example as to how you would structure an exam answer that has to do with offer/acceptance?

Should I stick with

1. was there an offer?

2. was it accepted?


or

1.

2.

and 3. was there consideration for the offer?

You should include consideration.

This is my default method for doing so from a practice exam. It takes like five seconds.

There was consideration (benefit to the promisor OR detriment to the promisee AND bargained for exchange) for the promise. The promisee, A, would give the Promisor, B, money for services provided (something not required by law and as such, a detriment). The bargained-for-exchange was the exchange of services provided for money (The promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must be the inducement for the promise).

I like this! Thanks a ton. But one question. How do you do this in the context of offeror/offeree?

BCLS wrote:

OGR3 wrote:

BCLS wrote:So can you guys give me an example as to how you would structure an exam answer that has to do with offer/acceptance?

Should I stick with

1. was there an offer?

2. was it accepted?


or

1.

2.

and 3. was there consideration for the offer?

You should include consideration.

This is my default method for doing so from a practice exam. It takes like five seconds.

There was consideration (benefit to the promisor OR detriment to the promisee AND bargained for exchange) for the promise. The promisee, A, would give the Promisor, B, money for services provided (something not required by law and as such, a detriment). The bargained-for-exchange was the exchange of services provided for money (The promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must be the inducement for the promise).

I like this! Thanks a ton. But one question. How do you do this in the context of offeror/offeree?

Offeror=promisor; Offeree=promisee

BCLS wrote:This is where I'm confused.

An offer is technically a promise, so above my offer to sell the gator is a promise to sell it, so long as you provide $100. I think the offer would still have to be supported by consideration right? So that means you and I need to suffer a legal detriment (mine is the offer, yours is the $100 payment). Is this at all correct?

i never really thought of it that way.

offeror is master of his offer. once he let's offer go, he can't really do anything except through a proper revocation. i assume the justification is that he had complete control of his own offer before he made it.

once offeree accepts, both are bound (excluding things like mistake, etc.). a K has been formed. the consideration is gator and 100 dollars. since there is proper O/A binds offeree/offeror to those terms.

no? i think i'm kind of confused by your question

Ah ok I'm beginning to see this. Thanks a ton for walking me through this lol.

joobacca wrote:

BCLS wrote:This is where I'm confused.

An offer is technically a promise, so above my offer to sell the gator is a promise to sell it, so long as you provide $100. I think the offer would still have to be supported by consideration right? So that means you and I need to suffer a legal detriment (mine is the offer, yours is the $100 payment). Is this at all correct?

i never really thought of it that way.

offeror is master of his offer. once he let's offer go, he can't really do anything except through a proper revocation. i assume the justification is that he had complete control of his own offer before he made it.

once offeree accepts, both are bound (excluding things like mistake, etc.). a K has been formed. the consideration is gator and 100 dollars. since there is proper O/A binds offeree/offeror to those terms.

no? i think i'm kind of confused by your question

Ok so what you are saying is to keep the separate.

Scenario 1: I PROMISE $100 to you if you refrain from drinking for a year. This is enforceable as a promise because there is consideration

Scenario 2: I offer you $100 in exchange for you to promise not to drink for a year. offer ofr Bi-K and is acceptance once you make your promise. No consideration analysis needed?

BCLS wrote:

joobacca wrote:

BCLS wrote:This is where I'm confused.

An offer is technically a promise, so above my offer to sell the gator is a promise to sell it, so long as you provide $100. I think the offer would still have to be supported by consideration right? So that means you and I need to suffer a legal detriment (mine is the offer, yours is the $100 payment). Is this at all correct?

i never really thought of it that way.

offeror is master of his offer. once he let's offer go, he can't really do anything except through a proper revocation. i assume the justification is that he had complete control of his own offer before he made it.

once offeree accepts, both are bound (excluding things like mistake, etc.). a K has been formed. the consideration is gator and 100 dollars. since there is proper O/A binds offeree/offeror to those terms.

no? i think i'm kind of confused by your question

Ok so what you are saying is to keep the separate.

Scenario 1: I PROMISE $100 to you if you refrain from drinking for a year. This is enforceable as a promise because there is consideration

Scenario 2: I offer you $100 in exchange for you to promise not to drink for a year. offer ofr Bi-K and is acceptance once you make your promise. No consideration analysis needed?

ok, i think i get what you're saying. my brain is kind of friend right now. first, i haven't taken K in a year, so be careful with what i say.

this is how i approached my K exam. i would talk about O/A. if there are no real issues, then i'd mention that.

then i'd talk about consideration. for the second one, yes, i would definitely mention that legal detriment counts as consideration. so the K is supported by consideration. i assume this is the self-righteous uncle offering his nephew a nice payday to abstain from all fun activities case, right?

i mean, how to kill or support something isn't really that important i think. it's wehther you do it properly.

if mechanism of O/A is good, then it's good, i think. if the consideration is bad, then it's bad and that's what kills the K. you can just discuss it like that (separately) or just combine it. whatever you approach you take shouldn't matter as long as it's all discussed.

joobacca wrote:

BCLS wrote:

joobacca wrote:

BCLS wrote:This is where I'm confused.

An offer is technically a promise, so above my offer to sell the gator is a promise to sell it, so long as you provide $100. I think the offer would still have to be supported by consideration right? So that means you and I need to suffer a legal detriment (mine is the offer, yours is the $100 payment). Is this at all correct?

i never really thought of it that way.

offeror is master of his offer. once he let's offer go, he can't really do anything except through a proper revocation. i assume the justification is that he had complete control of his own offer before he made it.

once offeree accepts, both are bound (excluding things like mistake, etc.). a K has been formed. the consideration is gator and 100 dollars. since there is proper O/A binds offeree/offeror to those terms.

no? i think i'm kind of confused by your question

Ok so what you are saying is to keep the separate.

Scenario 1: I PROMISE $100 to you if you refrain from drinking for a year. This is enforceable as a promise because there is consideration

Scenario 2: I offer you $100 in exchange for you to promise not to drink for a year. offer ofr Bi-K and is acceptance once you make your promise. No consideration analysis needed?

ok, i think i get what you're saying. my brain is kind of friend right now. first, i haven't taken K in a year, so be careful with what i say.

this is how i approached my K exam. i would talk about O/A. if there are no real issues, then i'd mention that.

then i'd talk about consideration. for the second one, yes, i would definitely mention that legal detriment counts as consideration. so the K is supported by consideration. i assume this is the self-righteous uncle offering his nephew a nice payday to abstain from all fun activities case, right?

i mean, how to kill or support something isn't really that important i think. it's wehther you do it properly.

if mechanism of O/A is good, then it's good, i think. if the consideration is bad, then it's bad and that's what kills the K. you can just discuss it like that (separately) or just combine it. whatever you approach you take shouldn't matter as long as it's all discussed.

thanks! so bottom line- talk about consideration during O/A?

if you want to. they are separate things though, but there's no problem in discussing them together. i mix and mash all the time because i write more and hit more issues that way. my brain isn't organized or capable enough to break things down discretely. but if you're the type of person who breaks down things into underlined/semi-coloned sections, then, technically, i think O/A should be separate from consideraiton. i would discuss O/A first, whether the actual things that happened satisfy O/A. then i would discuss any issues with consideration.

joobacca wrote:if you want to. they are separate things though, but there's no problem in discussing them together. i mix and mash all the time because i write more and hit more issues that way. my brain isn't organized or capable enough to break things down discretely. but if you're the type of person who breaks down things into underlined/semi-coloned sections, then, technically, i think O/A should be separate from consideraiton. i would discuss O/A first, whether the actual things that happened satisfy O/A. then i would discuss any issues with consideration.

thanks a ton!

ok. They are separate topics but when you are writing about offer it is appropriate to hit on consideration because a valid offer includes a bargained for exchange. The exchange is typically the consideration and the legal benefit/detriment should be present or you have no contract.

Two of the above posters mentioned TCR. Write for your professor. Write for the call of the question. If it asks, is there a valid contract? You must give at least a one sentence response to if there is consideration.

And on my K final there was only one question where I had to write that yes there was consideration present. Other questions had a different call to them. I had one on statute of frauds for merchants, etc.

evilxs wrote:ok. They are separate topics but when you are writing about offer it is appropriate to hit on consideration because a valid offer includes a bargained for exchange. The exchange is typically the consideration and the legal benefit/detriment should be present or you have no contract.

Two of the above posters mentioned TCR. Write for your professor. Write for the call of the question. If it asks, is there a valid contract? You must give at least a one sentence response to if there is consideration.

And on my K final there was only one question where I had to write that yes there was consideration present. Other questions had a different call to them. I had one on statute of frauds for merchants, etc.

Thanks guys!!

Quick question: IF I promise to give you 5,000 to go to college, and there is no consideration, but you substantially rely, we would use Section 90 promissory estoppel to attempt to enforce the promise even though there is no consideration

Second, if I make you an offer for a gator for $100, and you go out an buy a pen for it, and I revoke, we would use 87(2) to make the offer an option K (assuming I should have reasonably known it would result in substantial relaince on your part)

Sound about right?


you guys are saving my ass

Q1:
That totally depends. Are you a shithead? Then my reliance is not reasonable. Did I help you cheat on your LSAT and law exams? Then, again, no. Are you a priest? That certainly helps. Just go through the elements of promissory estoppel, and remember (in every K situation) the capacities and capabilities or the parties that they possess independently or because of prior relationships, and other shit.

I think without more facts that would warrant "reasonable reliance" this sounds like a promise of a gift, which is jackshit.

Q2:
I had to look up the Restatement. It says:
(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.

My take: no.

.