Mcmichael v. PRICE
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:18 pm
Can someone explain to me Mcmichael v. PRICE. Wording is hella weird and I googled but still don't fully understand what happened and why its important regarding consideration. Thanks.
I don't remember this case much other than it was about sand but this is what I have from my notes:
Rule: Too much discretion means no mutuality of agreement; If one party can walk away – no consideration.
Sooner Sand is a Requirements Contract (leaves discretion)
1. Ex. I will make and sell this jewelry and I will buy all the beads I need from you.
a. Can decide not to buy any beads at all.
b. Still a valid K.
c. If K said he could buy "all the sand he wants" that's different because he could buy none and walk away from K.