LAW 601 Lecture 8: Contracts - Prof Brubaker - Class 8
Document Summary
Uncle"s consideration was a healthier, more moral nephew . Court saw that promisee had suffered detriment in his giving up of his rights and not getting what was promised. Defendant saw that he had suffered no detriment, but had instead benefited by not smoking, etc. *bilateral (both parties promise) vs. unilateral (one party promises): problem: discounting retirement. In this case, i say the payment will equal consideration: gratuitous promises: an introduction, peppercorns (used to deride consideration that"s of trifling value) Page 1 of 3: case of mariner mlb team (bottom p. 33) ruling: there was consideration. Dissent: not if taxpayer paid and got back only ! The requirement of exchange: action in the past. Past consideration is no consideration, just like nominal consideration is no consideration. If it happened in the past it cannot be considered as a consideration for the promise: there has to be a real bargain going on past ser.
