Top Law Schools

A promises that if B loans him $10, A will pay B $10 in 1 day (offer). B agrees (acceptance). 1 day passes and B asks for the $10 per the agreement. A refuses to pay.

Is there consideration to support an oral contract? If so, what is it?

Are you a student? The information you need to answer this question should be right around page 1 of any contracts book ever.

BNA wrote:Are you a student? The information you need to answer this question should be right around page 1 of any contracts book ever.

Ok, and the answer is?

SDviaVA wrote:

BNA wrote:Are you a student? The information you need to answer this question should be right around page 1 of any contracts book ever.

Ok, and the answer is?

It depends...

BNA wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:

BNA wrote:Are you a student? The information you need to answer this question should be right around page 1 of any contracts book ever.

Ok, and the answer is?

It depends...

Ok...you don't know the answer.

consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

SDviaVA wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

If this isn't a K, there are a lot of people with interest-free loans that are really concerned.

Of course there is consideration. One party gets the benefit of having $10 otherwise wouldn't have, and the other party cannot do anything with their $10 for a day - that is a detriment.

Sorry, misread the question. The consideration is $10 today sought for $10 tomorrow. Yes, that is consideration.

alphasteve wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

If this isn't a K, there are a lot of people with interest-free loans that are really concerned.

Of course there is consideration. One party gets the benefit of having $10 otherwise wouldn't have, and the other party cannot do anything with their $10 for a day - that is a detriment.

I agree that not having $10 for a day is a detriment, but I don't see what that has anything to do with a contract analysis?

pancakes3 wrote:Sorry, misread the question. The consideration is $10 today sought for $10 tomorrow. Yes, that is consideration.

Yes, but doesn't each party need to receive consideration for the contract to be enforceable? A gets the benefit of the use of $10 for 1 day. But what does B get?

LawSchoolTruth wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Sorry, misread the question. The consideration is $10 today sought for $10 tomorrow. Yes, that is consideration.

Yes, but doesn't each party need to receive consideration for the contract to be enforceable? A gets the benefit of the use of $10 for 1 day. But what does B get?

The point that others were making is that the detriment is the consideration for the contract. A famous case of this being the "Drunk Uncle" case, in which a nephew promised to not sin (no smoking, drinking, gambling til a certain age) and uncle would pay. Court ruled that nephew could have done any of those things, but because he gave up that opportunity and right, this was a detriment that is a sufficient consideration.

Likewise here, the person is forgoing the option of using his $10 today so that he can receive $10 tomorrow. In fact, this is de minimis, but if you consider the general idea of inflation, he's "paying" as his $10 yesterday (not usable) is worth more than $10 tomorrow.

LawSchoolTruth wrote:

alphasteve wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

If this isn't a K, there are a lot of people with interest-free loans that are really concerned.

Of course there is consideration. One party gets the benefit of having $10 otherwise wouldn't have, and the other party cannot do anything with their $10 for a day - that is a detriment.

I agree that not having $10 for a day is a detriment, but I don't see what that has anything to do with a contract analysis?

Hamer v. Sidway.

I hope this isn't something you missed on an exam.

B gets repaid.

What is your question about this? Are you looking at te sufficiency of consideration or what?

KunAgnis wrote:

LawSchoolTruth wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Sorry, misread the question. The consideration is $10 today sought for $10 tomorrow. Yes, that is consideration.

Yes, but doesn't each party need to receive consideration for the contract to be enforceable? A gets the benefit of the use of $10 for 1 day. But what does B get?

The point that others were making is that the detriment is the consideration for the contract. A famous case of this being the "Drunk Uncle" case, in which a nephew promised to not sin (no smoking, drinking, gambling til a certain age) and uncle would pay. Court ruled that nephew could have done any of those things, but because he gave up that opportunity and right, this was a detriment that is a sufficient consideration.

Likewise here, the person is forgoing the option of using his $10 today so that he can receive $10 tomorrow. In fact, this is de minimis, but if you consider the general idea of inflation, he's "paying" as his $10 yesterday (not usable) is worth more than $10 tomorrow.

I have read the case. The detriment is not what serves as consideration in that case. In that case both parties get some benefit, which satisfies the consideration requirement. The nephew gets 5K and the uncle gets the benefit of knowing that his nephew is not drinking, gambling, etc. when he doesn't want him to.

In the Hypo above, B gets nothing, in fact he technically looses $10 for a day.

Tls2016 wrote:B gets repaid.

What is your question about this? Are you looking at te sufficiency of consideration or what?

B gets repaid the money that he already had before the agreement was entered into. I am not looking at the sufficiency of consideration, I am looking at the fact that there is NO consideration.

alphasteve wrote:

LawSchoolTruth wrote:

alphasteve wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

If this isn't a K, there are a lot of people with interest-free loans that are really concerned.

Of course there is consideration. One party gets the benefit of having $10 otherwise wouldn't have, and the other party cannot do anything with their $10 for a day - that is a detriment.

I agree that not having $10 for a day is a detriment, but I don't see what that has anything to do with a contract analysis?

Hamer v. Sidway.

I hope this isn't something you missed on an exam.

Is not, but thanks for your concern.

SDviaVA wrote:

alphasteve wrote:

LawSchoolTruth wrote:

alphasteve wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:consideration cuts both ways - it's a bargained for EXCHANGE. This is just a promise to give a dollar - that's a gift. A promise of a dollar in exchange for... a smile? then it might be "depends" but the facts as it is, is as straight forward a gift hypo as it gets short of using the world "gift"

Yes, but what is being exchanged here $10 for $10?

The hypo actually contains 2 promises, B promised to give A $10, and in return A promises to give B $10 1 day later.

Also, a promise to make a gift in the future is unenforceable, and legally meaningless. So if there were just one promise to give $10, it wouldn't even be a gift.

If this isn't a K, there are a lot of people with interest-free loans that are really concerned.

Of course there is consideration. One party gets the benefit of having $10 otherwise wouldn't have, and the other party cannot do anything with their $10 for a day - that is a detriment.

I agree that not having $10 for a day is a detriment, but I don't see what that has anything to do with a contract analysis?

Hamer v. Sidway.

I hope this isn't something you missed on an exam.

Is not, but thanks for your concern.

Are you also LawSchoolTruth?

SDviaVA wrote:

Tls2016 wrote:B gets repaid.

What is your question about this? Are you looking at te sufficiency of consideration or what?

B gets repaid the money that he already had before the agreement was entered into. I am not looking at the sufficiency of consideration, I am looking at the fact that there is NO consideration.

The consideration is giving away $10 for a day.( As explained above.)

BNA wrote:Are you a student? The information you need to answer this question should be right around page 1 of any contracts book ever.

Seriously go kill yourself. If you are not going to be helpful don't respond at all. Stop wasting the internet.

SDviaVA wrote:A promises that if B loans him $10, A will pay B $10 in 1 day (offer). B agrees (acceptance). 1 day passes and B asks for the $10 per the agreement. A refuses to pay.

Is there consideration to support an oral contract? If so, what is it?

YES. Promise for a promise can count as consideration so long as the promise is not illusory. Promising performance tomorrow for a promise of performance the offeror needs now is fine. Isn't this exactly how any bank loans work?

BrokenMouse wrote:

SDviaVA wrote:A promises that if B loans him $10, A will pay B $10 in 1 day (offer). B agrees (acceptance). 1 day passes and B asks for the $10 per the agreement. A refuses to pay.

Is there consideration to support an oral contract? If so, what is it?

YES. Promise for a promise can count as consideration so long as the promise is not illusory. Promising performance tomorrow for a promise of performance the offeror needs now is fine. Isn't this exactly how any bank loans work?

Well, that and interest and origination fees.

A positive return on investment is not necessary for a promised loan to be enforceable. Europe right now is experiencing negative interest rates, meaning that banks are paying individuals to borrow money from them. If -2% interest is consideration in the real world, and 2% interest is consideration in the real world, OP's hypothetical 0% interest rate looks like consideration.

To the guy talking about who got the "benefit" and who got the "detriment". Benefit/detriment theory is old and has been done away with in contract law for a long, long time. Contracts are often "benefit-benefit", meaning both parties are better off. Ascertaining who got the "benefit" and who got the "detriment" is useless because contract law no longer uses this theory.

Consideration is an act, or a promise to act, bargained for and given in exchange for a promise.

A promises to pay B tomorrow, if B gives money today. A makes a promise; B makes an act. This is consideration, and is enforceable. It's the same as someone saying "paint my house today, and I;ll pay you tomorrow".

Yes, this is a contract. The consideration is the $10. It doesn't matter that its the same as his consideration, or that he "lost" the use of $10 for a day. Those pertain to the sufficiency of the consideration, not whether consideration existed in the first place.