(See notes fm. 9/5)Consideration and Pretenses (A.B.): (See p. 33)
A court will not inquire into sufficiency of consideration as long as the promise is not a pretense.
– no pretense to a promise will satisfy the consideration element or make anunenforceable promise enforceable.
– such as a promise to make a gift, generally not enforceable if there is noconsideration.
Promise or Performance,(Note 4)
Gratuitous Promises: An Introduction, pp. 32-33
Fiege v. Boehm,
Maryland App. Ct. (1956) (210 Md. 352; 123 A.2d 316) p. 34► P agreed not to bring bastardy proceedings against D in exchange for the promise that Dwould pay a certain amount in support etc.; D made payments until got a blood testsuggesting the child was not his; D brought bastardy proceedings and sued for breach: P canrecover even though the child was not D’s.
Forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecutelitigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be wellfounded.
Contract had sufficient consideration because P did not exercise P’s right to prosecute for bastardy in exchange for D’s promise to pay. P made the claim in good faith and there wasno proof of fraud or unfairness.
It’s possible for P to have suits against other men as long as they are in goodfaith – P or any other man should just not enter into agreement until knew for certainty the paternity.
(See notes fm. 9/5)(B)The Requirement of Exchange: Action in the Past, p. 39 [Promise for performancepreviously done without reliance on the promise]Restatement (Second) § 86 (Promise for Benefit Received),
p. 227(1) A promise made in
recognition of a benefit previously received
by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.(2) A promise is not binding under Subsection (1)(a) if the promisee conferred the benefit as a
or for other reasons the promisor has not been
; or (b) to the extent that its
value is disproportionate
to the benefit.
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.,
Mo. App. Ct. (1959) (322 S.W.2d 163) p. 39 [for considerationargument] & 91 [reliance argument]► D had passed resolution promising to pay a set amount in pension per month upon Pretirement, setting no conditions requiring performance of P to receive the payments: Ct.ruled there was not consideration based on past performance but that there was reliance because she retired at the time she did in part because she would be able to receive the pension
Mills v. Wyman,
(Mass. 1825) (3 Pick. 207) p. 44► D promised to pay P for medical care given to his son which was already given: not validconsideration because there was no bargained for exchange before the treatment was given
Brett A. Hueffmeier Contracts I Outline, SLU, Teri Dobbins, Fall 2006 3