Tabor of the next installment of ten cabinets. tional amount. For a sample answe
ID: 353833 • Letter: T
Question
Tabor of the next installment of ten cabinets. tional amount. For a sample answer to Question 12-2, go to Appendix I at the 12-2. QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER:Preexisting Duty. end of this text. Bernstein owns a lot and house according tola particular set of plans 12-3. Consideration Daniel, a recent college graduate, is on and specifications. She solicits bids from build his way home for the Christmas holidays from his new ing contractors and receives three bids: one job. He gets caught in a snowstorm and is taken in by an wants to build a 254 UNIT THREE CONTRACTS AND E-CONTRACTS elderly couple, who provide him with food and shelter. filed claims with Zurich regarding damage to Shoreline's After the snowplows have cleared the road, Daniel pro- property. Zurich determined that the cost of the dam- ceeds home. Daniel's father, Fred, is most appreciative of age was $334,901. Zurich then subtracted an applicable the elderly couple's action and in a letter promises to pay $40,000 deductible and sent checks to RDI totaling them $500. The elderly couple, in need of funds, accept $294,901. RDI disputed the amount. Zurich eventu- Fred's offer. Then, because of a dispute between Daniel ally agreed to issue a check for an additional $86,000 in and Fred, Fred refuses to pay the elderly couple the $500. return for RDI's signing a "Release of All Claims." Later, Discuss whether the couple can hold Fred liable in con contending that the deductible had been incorrectly tract for the services rendered to Daniel. applied and that this was a breach of contrac t, among other things, Shoreline filed a suit against Zurich in a 12-4. Illusory Promises Costello hired Sagan to drive his racing car in a race. Sagan's friend Gideon promised to the agree ment reached by RDI and Zurich affect Shoreline's federal district court. How, if at all, shouldExplanation / Answer
No, the couple cannot hold Fred liable in contract.
Now, looking the case from the principle of promissory estoppel. A promise can be enforced by law even without a consideration. However, the person promised (elderly couple) must rely on the promise and act in a detrimental manner. Suppose, the couple had agreed to give Daniel shelter if Fred promised to pay $500. In this case, Fred would have been liable to pay as there were a consideration and bargain for consideration. However. in the case of the image case, the couple had already acted/provided shelter to Daniel and couple did not act in a detrimental way for them on the basis of promise.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.