9. Don promised to buy his girlfriend, Sophie, a new car so Sophie sold her old
ID: 454057 • Letter: 9
Question
9. Don promised to buy his girlfriend, Sophie, a new car so Sophie sold her old car. Don now refuses to buy Sophie the car. Sophie has a job that requires her to have a car to get to work. If Sophie sues Don to enforce the promise, the likely result is that the promise will:
a) Be enforced under promissory estoppel because Sophie reasonably relied on Don's promise, to her detriment.
b) Not be enforced as Sophie was not unjustly enriched simply because she did not receive the car.
c) Be enforced because the car is a necessity for Sophie and all contracts for necessities are binding and enforceable for all parties even if contract formation is flawed.
d) Not be enforced as Don’s promise was a gift to Sophie; Sophie gave consideration, but Don did not.
10. X and Y agreed that X would sell Y his small business, including the land on which the business was situated, for $500,000. Both X and Y knew at the time the contract was formed that the business was actually worth $800,000. Is this a valid, enforceable contract?
a) Yes, provided the contract was in writing, in accordance with the Statute of Frauds and the parties freely consented.
b) Yes, provided the contract was in accordance with state statutory law that permits real estate sales for 40% or more below market value.
c) No, because $500,000 is not valid consideration for a business worth $800,000.
d) No, because X has no pre-existing legal duty to sell his business.
Explanation / Answer
a) Be enforced under promissory estoppel because Sophie reasonably relied on Don's promise, to her detriment.
Don’s promise to gift Sophie a car is a donative promise on part of Don. As per general rule, a simple donative promise is unenforceable because of no consideration involved. However, in this case, the promisee, Sophie, relied on Don’s promise to her detriment. Therefore as per Promissory Estoppel, Don’s promise may be enforceable, as it was relied upon.
a) Yes, provided the contract was in writing, in accordance with the Statute of Frauds and the parties freely consented.
The law leaves the adequacy of consideration to be decided by the respective parties. Hence the law will not object to the inadequacy of consideration. However, inadequacy of consideration might be taken into account by the law if the consent of the promissor was not given freely
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.