Alternatives to Consideration

Question 1

What are the 3 alternatives to consideration?

Answer 1

1. Promissory/Equitable estoppel (reliance)
2. Benefit Material Rule
3. Restitution

Question 2

Promissory Estoppel (reliance)

Answer 2

RULE similar to Restatement 90:
(1) a clear and definite promise,
(2) a reasonable expectation by the promisor that the offer will induce action or forbearance on the promisee,
(3) the actual inducement of the reasonable action or forbearance by the promisee, and
(4) detriment to the promisee that can only be avoided through enforcement of the promise.

• Pavel Enterprises (general rule)

with reliance:
- Conrad v Field (law student and friend w/money)
- Ricketts (niece and grandfather)

no reliance:
- Hayes v. plantation (retired man)
- Maryland National Bank (charitable donation)

Question 3

Promissory Restitution

Answer 3

A promise given in exchange for a past act os not supported by consideration and it is not an enforceable contract. some exception apply, such a later promises to pay a debt. The court has determined that later promises to pay a debt is sufficient to enforce a promise because they rely on the moral obligation. So in some cases, past consideration is sufficient to support the enforcement of the promise.

1. a promise to pay that is discharged by law (bankruptcy)
2. a promise to perform a previous undertaking that was voidable due to a defense
3. a promise to pay for a benefit already received.

Question 4

When is a subsequent promise binding? Antecedent Valuable Consideration Test

Answer 4

it is a subsequent promise, based on a previous valid and enforceable obligation (promise supported by consideration) is binding.
On the contrary, a subsequent promise is not binding when it is founded on merely moral obligation and not any other consideration.

Question 5

R 86 Benefit Material Rule

Answer 5

Minority rule - a moral obligation is sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay when the promisor has received the material benefit, even if the was no original duty or liability on the promisor.

Question 6

Non-Promissory restitution (RESTITUTION)

Answer 6

it is a claim that the defendant ha obtained a benefit from the plaintiff and should be required to make restitution to the plaintiff (in other words, D must restore the benefit to the rightful owner). Restitution serves to compensate in contract-like (“quasi-contract”) circumstances and are obligations/duties impose by the law on grounds of justice and equity to avoid unjust enrichment.

Question 7

Elements necessary to prove unjust enrichment

Answer 7

1. benefit conferred on defendant by plaintiff,
2. appreciation of the benefit by defendant,
3. acceptance and relation of the benefit.

Mitchell v. Moore case: P could not under the theory of unjust enrichment.