Contracts: Exceptions for consideration

Question 1

Can a moral obligation substitute consideration ?

Answer 1

Webb v. McGowin
Facts: Defendant, rather than let a cinderblock fall on the plaintiff he absorbed the injury. Subsequently the defendant promised to pay plaintiff and then reneged.
Rule: Moral obligation along with a promise is sufficient consideration where the promisor has received a material benefit.

Mills v. Wyman
Facts: Plaintiff treated a sick man he found. After, the man’s father promised to pay the plaintiff money for the care, and then reneged. Plaintiff sued, but the father does not have an obligation to take care of his adult son so there would be no moral obligation to reimburse.
Rule: To invoke moral obligation as consideration, one must not only make a promise but also have an actual moral obligation to perform the promised performance

Question 2

When is Promissory Estoppel efnorceable?

Answer 2

Promises may be enforced where they cause reliance that is foreseeable, reasonable and substantial.

Question 3

What is promissory estoppel?

Answer 3

Promises may be enforced where they cause reliance that is foreseeable, reasonable and substantial.
Ricketts v. Scothorn
Facts: Plaintiffs grandfather, the defendant promised plaintiff to support her because “she shouldn’t have to work.” Defendant’s estate’ claims no consideration
Rule(1): Promissory estoppel can replace consideration when a promise comes along with reliance that is (1) reasonable, (2) foreseeable, and (3) substantial.
Rule (1b): Reasonable also speaks to the reasonableness of you believing it would be enforceable

Question 4

Will expectancy or reliance damages be awarded with promissory estoppel?

Answer 4

The remedy for promissory estoppel will often be limited to reliance damages, but expectation damages may be awarded.
Promissory estoppel may not be available where the promissory relation is already governed by contract

Question 5

Cases of promissory estoppel.

Answer 5

Allegheny College v. Nat’l Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown
Facts: Descendant promised plaintiff a very large charitable donation, plaintiff therefore named a fund after her. Decedent’s estate, the defendant, refuses to pay because no consideration. Court found that the duty to perpetuate the fund in decedent’s name was consideration.
Rule: Charities tend to suffer from lack of consideration, and promissory estoppel is hard to invoke because reliance is often hard to prove. Therefore Restatement §90 establishes reliance in charitable donations

Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo
Facts: Defendant promised plaintiff a charitable donation. Plaintiff claims reliance on it in building a library. Court held no reliance.
Rule: Restatement §90 notwithstanding, Courts can decide when charities have in fact relied on pledges