Contracts question - bargained-for Forum

[bartleby]

Im retarded, I'm hoping someone can spell out R. 81 for me.

Consideration as Motive or Inducing Cause

(1) what is bargained for does not itself induce the making of a promise does not prevent it from being consideration for the promise

(2) has to do with the promise and the action

[PinkCow]

I have no idea what that combination of words means.

[orm518]

Yeah, I'm totally at a loss.

My initial reaction was that it might concern bargaining in a unilateral K to hold an offer open by providing collateral. This creates an option contract, but retains the offeree's power of acceptance (doesn't bind either party).

This is a perfect example of why not all supplements/books/outlines work across the board.

[PinkCow]

Im retarded, I'm hoping someone can spell out R. 81 for me.

Consideration as Motive or Inducing Cause

(1) what is bargained for does not itself induce the making of a promise does not prevent it from being consideration for the promise

(2) has to do with the promise and the action

Ok after looking at your post like 100 times I think I get what you're asking.

(1) is pointing to the fact that a party to a contract can have many different motives for why she is contracting and the consideration doesn't necessarily have to be "bargained for" in strict terms for a valid contract (Hamer v Sidway).

I still don't think (2) is even in English.

[orm518]

Oh, a quick Google shows your question deals with the Restatement. I think your paraphrase is confusing, here's the full text.

81. Consideration as Motive or Inducing Cause

(1) 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.The fact that a promise does not of itself induce a performance

(2)
or return promise does not prevent the performance or return promise from being consideration for the promise.

[bartleby]

Right, I'm still in LSAT mode so I felt like copy and pasting word for word would get me in trouble. I sort of understand the Restatement in a vacuum - and using cases like the Uncle/Nephew - but when you throw in an offeror and and offeree, and that they can both perform or give promises... then I'm really, really lost.

My prof said it goes back to looking at the external manifestations but I honestly think he is just trying to confuse me because we just spent the last 2 weeks looking into intent.

I think I'm just going to go the E&E route before exams.

[target]

Right, I'm still in LSAT mode so I felt like copy and pasting word for word would get me in trouble. I sort of understand the Restatement in a vacuum - and using cases like the Uncle/Nephew - but when you throw in an offeror and and offeree, and that they can both perform or give promises... then I'm really, really lost.

My prof said it goes back to looking at the external manifestations but I honestly think he is just trying to confuse me because we just spent the last 2 weeks looking into intent.

I think I'm just going to go the E&E route before exams.

Can you rephrase your (2) question?

I thought consideration may trigger external manifestation (in performance cases), the Hamer v. Sidway case cited by Pinkcow. For promises cases, promise may not be consideration unless the promised performance can be consideration. From my read of R.81, these are qualifications that go along with promises, so you have to look at what performance is being promised.

[MrKappus]

(1) A bargained-for thing can be "consideration" even if it isn't the thing that got X make a promise.
(2) Even if a promise didn't induce Ys performance or return promise, that performance or return promise can still be consideration.

OR

No matter what/when/why a party promises, return promises, or performs, it can be can be consideration.