Restatement §81. Consideration as Motive or Inducing Cause Forum

[Extension_Cord]

Restatement §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.
2) The fact that a promise does not of itself induce a performance or return promise does not prevent the performance or return promise from being consideration for the promise.

Can someone explain this one to me?

[ggocat]

Do the notes help explain?

Comment:

a. "Bargained for." Consideration requires that a performance or return promise be "bargained for" in exchange for a promise; this means that the promisor must manifest an intention to induce the performance or return promise and to be induced by it, and that the promisee must manifest an intention to induce the making of the promise and to be induced by it. See § 71 and Comment b. In most commercial bargains the consideration is the object of the promisor's desire and that desire is a material motive or cause inducing the making of the promise, and the reciprocal desire of the promisee for the making of the promise similarly induces the furnishing of the consideration.

b. Immateriality of motive or cause. This Section makes explicit a limitation on the requirement that consideration be bargained for. Even in the typical commercial bargain, the promisor may have more than one motive, and the person furnishing the consideration need not inquire into the promisor's motives. Unless both parties know that the purported consideration is mere pretense, it is immaterial that the promisor's desire for the consideration is incidental to other objectives and even that the other party knows this to be so. Compare § 79 and Illustrations. Subsection (2) states a similar rule with respect to the motives of the promisee.

http://www.cs.xu.edu/~osborn/main/lawSc ... 0Cause.htm

e.g.,
I am a lawyer, and you are a bank. I agree to do some debt collection work for you, for which I am paid very little. I don't really want this business because I have a thriving real estate and condemnation practice. But I hope that by doing a good job with this debt collection work, you will see that I am a good lawyer and will hire me to handle work related to foreclosures and commercial leases.

The bank's promise to pay me for debt collection did not induce me to take the work. Regardless, the bank's promise is consideration for my debt collection work.

[Champion of the Sun]

Look up Pennsy Supply v. American Ash. 895 A.2d 595

[DocHawkeye]

The actual value of the consideration doesn't matter as long as its actually being bargined for. See Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891).

[Kabuo]

The actual value of the consideration doesn't matter as long as its actually being bargined for. See Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891).

Am I missing something or is this completely unrelated to anything ITT?