Contract Question Forum

[Extension_Cord]

If I have a pinecone with a lot of centimental value that my grandmother gave to me before passing away and a tornado strikes and my neighbor acquires the pinecone. Would it be a binding contract if my neighbor and I bargained for the sale of the pine cone at a heavy price?

Could I decide, hey that pinecone isn't worth all that much and back out after the acceptance?

Just to clairfy, the pinecone has no actuall value.

[Aberzombie1892]

why would you not bring a replevin suit to get the pinecone back?

[Voltaire]

Wouldn't this fall under adequacy of consideration (in my class the rule is inadequacy of consideration does not void consideration but your professor could state it differently)? A pinecone for money is still consideration no matter how inadequate it seems.

[bartleby]

no there are exceptions to adequacy of consideration, like peppercorns. if i give you $1000 for a $5 toy, it isn't consideration. i think there has to be some appearance of the sentimental value that she'd have to prove - then, you could say adequacy of consideration. like maybe if u emailed her and said that it was your grandmother's and worth more than money to you.

this is a very basic, limited 1L response - i have no idea a replevin suit is. but i am prety sure i am right .

[Voltaire]

no there are exceptions to adequacy of consideration, like peppercorns. if i give you $1000 for a $5 toy, it isn't consideration. i think there has to be some appearance of the sentimental value that she'd have to prove - then, you could say adequacy of consideration. like maybe if u emailed her and said that it was your grandmother's and worth more than money to you.

this is a very basic, limited 1L response - i have no idea a replevin suit is. but i am prety sure i am right .

I'm sure you're probably right that there can be exceptions somewhere at sometime. Your example is way off though. You can essentially trade $2,000 dollars for $25 as in the Batsakis case.

[bartleby]

we haven't done the Batsakis case but from wiki, it seems a little confusing w/ currency of exchange and stuff. if anything, it seems like the rule is adequacy of consideration, an exception to this rule is the peppercorn, and an exception to the exception would be Batsakis.

honestly, i don't fucking know though.

[mrloblaw]

1L contracts seems like a long time ago, but I believe the general rule is that courts do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience of the court. That makes it highly malleable based on what the individual court (jurisdiction?) thinks about paternalism v. freedom of contract.

[target]

If I have a pinecone with a lot of centimental value that my grandmother gave to me before passing away and a tornado strikes and my neighbor acquires the pinecone. Would it be a binding contract if my neighbor and I bargained for the sale of the pine cone at a heavy price?

Could I decide, hey that pinecone isn't worth all that much and back out after the acceptance?

Just to clairfy, the pinecone has no actuall value.

Did you make this hypo up? It sounds more like a property problem (lost property) than a contract one.

[mrloblaw]

If I have a pinecone with a lot of centimental value that my grandmother gave to me before passing away and a tornado strikes and my neighbor acquires the pinecone. Would it be a binding contract if my neighbor and I bargained for the sale of the pine cone at a heavy price?

Could I decide, hey that pinecone isn't worth all that much and back out after the acceptance?

Just to clairfy, the pinecone has no actuall value.

Did you make this hypo up? It sounds more like a property problem (lost property) than a contract one.

Also credited. Technically, the neighbor has no property rights in the pine cone.

Edit: Maybe he's quitclaiming it?

[agathos]

Wouldn't this fall under adequacy of consideration (in my class the rule is inadequacy of consideration does not void consideration but your professor could state it differently)? A pinecone for money is still consideration no matter how inadequate it seems.

I think it does not matter how inadequate or not.
It really only depends on whether those two parties bargain for it or not
However in this situation, it is very hard to prove that whether or not the reasonable person will believe your story are a really bargain than a nominal deal

[AreJay711]

Well we haven't done this is contracts yet but based on property it seems like the contract wouldn't be valid. How can you contract for something that you already have (ownership of the pine cone)? So there would be no consideration and therefore no contract.

[Kilpatrick]

Your hypo doesn't work because this neighbor stole your pine cone. But if you are just wondering if there is a binding contract when you agree to pay a lot of money for something that only has value to you then the answer is yes.

[Kiersten1985]

Problem with this hypo is that it's not actually a K question - it's a property question. If you can prove the pinecone was yours before the tornado, it's still yours anyway. Law of finders.

So in the end, I guess the K could be void because you're paying for something that's already yours.

[r6_philly]

Of course you can back out. The question should be whether or not the other party has a remedy at law.

As for the property issue. The rightful owner should take action to repossess the cone by replevin. But it could be argued that you have lost your property right by abandonment or adverse possession. By entering a contract to buy back the cone instead of demanding its return, it may be enough of a sign that you relinquished your property rights. If the other person has had the cone for enough period of time, adverse possession may apply.

Either way, I think the breach may afford a remedy, but what is the remedy? He can't argue for reliance interest because no one else would pay any money for it since it is valueless except to you. So I don't know, but there is my 1L analysis