Chapter 12: Consideration
1. Ken, grateful that Letisha performed life-saving CPR on him after he had suffered a heart attack, writes a document with the following language: “In consideration of Letisha Washington having saved my life, I hereby promise to pay her $250 per week for life. Signed [Ken Smith].” For the next 3 years, he faithfully makes the weekly payments, and then stops. Letisha, upset that Ken broke his word to her, sues him seeking to reinstate the payments. Was there a valid contract formed in this instance? Why or why not? (5 points)
2. Imagine that Alexandra promises to give Rasputin $1000 if he stops drinking alcohol for one week. If Rasputin does so, is a contract formed (can he enforce Alexandra’s promise to pay him $1000)? (5 points)
3. Sami walks into a restaurant. She is given a menu, which indicates that lobster is $30. Sami orders the lobster. It arrives, and Sami thinks it is very tasty. When the bill arrives, Sami tries to execute a clever ploy she learned about in her business law class. She writes a check to the restaurant for $20, and writes “full settlement” across the top. The waiter accepts the check without looking at it, and the restaurant manager later deposits it in the restaurant’s bank account. Is this a liquidated or an unliquidated debt? Is Sami off the hook for the last $10? (5 points)
It is important to learn how to answer questions in a logical manner that demonstrates critical thinking. The best way to do this is to apply the facts to the rule of law and then come to your answer. If you try to come to your answer first, you might miss something along the way. Here is the format in which I want you to try and answer questions for your homework:
1. Identify and describe/define the rule of law that you are applying. It is best if you can specifically identify what needs to be proven in order for this rule of law to apply. This is the point where you are showing me, the instructor, that you know the rule of law.
2. Apply the facts by pointing out how the facts do or do not prove what is needed for the rule of law you identified above. If the rule of law requires that the plaintiff prove three things, it is always best to discuss each of the three things, even if you think the answer is obvious. This is the point where you are showing me, the instructor, that you know how to apply the rule of law to a factual situation.
3. Summarize and clearly state your answer to the question. This is the point where you actually tell me the answer.
Here are a couple examples of how students have done this well in the past. Some students prefer a paragraph format while others prefer using more of a bullet-point format. Either is fine, so long as the answer hits all of the key points.