Ks

Question 1

What are the elements to the defense of impracticability?

Answer 1

The defense of impracticability is available if: (i) an unforeseen event occurs; (ii) the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was based; and (iii) the party seeking discharge is not at fault. The defense of impracticability is available when the goods that are the subject matter of the contract are destroyed.

Question 2

How does assumption of risk effect the defense of impracticability?

Answer 2

If a party assumes the risk of an event happening that makes performance impracticable, then the defense of impracticability will not apply.

Question 3

What defenses are available to contract enforcement when the subject matter of the contract is destroyed?

Answer 3

Impracticability

Question 4

What are the elements of the defense “frustration of purpose”?

Answer 4

In order for a contractual obligation to be discharged by frustration of purpose, there must be (1) an unexpected event that occurs; (2) the nonoccurence of the event was a basic assumption of the contract; (3) without the fault of the frustrated party; (4) and the event destroys that party’s purpose in entering into the contract.

Question 5

What is a 3rd party beneficiary contract?

Answer 5

A third-party beneficiary contract results when the parties to a contract intend that the performance by one of the parties is to benefit a third person who is not a party to the contract. If the promisee tells the intended beneficiary about the contract and should reasonably foresee reliance, and the beneficiary does so rely to his detriment, then the intended beneficiary may sue the promisee for his breach of the contract.

Question 6

Explain how an intended beneficiary’s rights vest and the consequence of the vesting of those rights.

Answer 6

Only an intended beneficiary whose rights under a contract have vested can sue to enforce a contract. The rights of an intended beneficiary vest when: (1) the beneficiary materially relies on the rights created; (2) manifests assent to the contract at one party’s request; (3) or files a lawsuit to enforce the contract. However, until the beneficiary’s rights vest, the parties to the contract can freely modify or rescind the contract. ….Because the wife’s rights did not vest until after the contract was modified to remove her interest, she cannot sue the artist to enforce the contract.

Question 7

From whom may an intended beneficiary recover?

Answer 7

An intended beneficiary to whom the promisee owed money (i.e., a creditor beneficiary) or an intended beneficiary to whom the promisee is under a legal obligation, may sue either the promisor to enforce his contractual promise, or the promisee on the underlying obligation, but only one recovery is allowed.

Question 8

May a promisor in a 3rd party contract raise defenses against an intended beneficiary?

Answer 8

Yes. When a party is suing as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, the promisor can raise any defense against the third-party beneficiary that the promisor had against the original promisee. Including, payment prior to notice of the assignment.

Question 9

When are contract rights assignable?

Answer 9

Generally, contract rights are assignable unless the assignment materially increases the duty or risk of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor’s chance of obtaining performance.

Question 10

What affect is given to a non-assignment clause in a K as to assignees?

Answer 10

although the assignment of contractual rights in violation of a prohibition against the assignment of rights does constitute a breach of contract, prohibition is not enforceable against the assignee to prevent the assignee from enjoying the assigned rights.

Question 11

What is the legal affect of a delegation?

Answer 11

When obligations are delegated, the delegator is not released from liability, and recovery can be had against the delegator if the delegatee does not perform, unless the other party to the contract agrees to release that party and substitute a new one (i.e., forms a novation).

Question 12

SOF: Surety Rule

Answer 12

Suretyship is a three-party contract, wherein one party (the surety) promises a second party (the obligee) that the surety will be responsible for any debt of a third party (the principal) resulting from the principal’s failure to pay as agreed. Under the Statute of Frauds, a promise to answer for the debt or other obligation of another must generally be in writing to be enforceable. There is an exception to this rule if the main purpose of the surety in agreeing to pay the debt of the principal is the surety’s own economic advantage, rather than the principal’s benefit.

Question 13

Anticipatory repudiation

Answer 13

If a party to a contract clearly and unequivocally repudiates its contractual duty prior to its obligation to perform, the party has committed an anticipatory breach of the contract. A party’s demand for performance for a term not contained in the contract, accompanied by an unequivocal statement that the demanding party will not perform a contractual duty unless the other party meets the additional term, constitutes an anticipatory breach of contract and excuses performance by the other party.

Question 14

A collector owned a painting that needed professional restoration. The collector brought the painting to a restorer and, after examining the painting, the restorer quoted the collector a price for the restoration. The restorer told the collector that since she was going on a vacation and would be unreachable, the collector had a month to make his decision. Two days later, the collector mailed a letter to the restorer accepting the restorer’s price. Through no fault of the collector, this letter was lost in the mail and never delivered. The next day, the collector learned of another person who would do the restoration for a lower price and would begin immediately. The collector mailed a second letter to the restorer that stated that he did not require her services. On arriving home from her vacation, the restorer received the collector’s second letter. As a consequence, she contacted another art owner and began restoration work for that owner. In the meantime, the collector became dissatisfied with the work of the second restorer. He contacted the original restorer and demanded that she begin the restoration work on his painting, which she refused to do. The collector is suing the restorer for breach of contract in a jurisdiction that follows the mailbox rule. Will the collector prevail?

Answer 14

Correct Answer: No, because the restorer relied on the collector’s rejection.

Answer choice A is correct. The restorer’s reliance on the collector’s rejection estops the collector from asserting the existence of a contract. Answer choice B is incorrect because, under the mailbox rule, an acceptance is effective upon mailing. It is not required to be received by the offeror. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the collector’s letter constituted a valid acceptance, as he had mailed it within the month that the restorer stated that her offer would remain open, because the restorer received the collector’s subsequent rejection first and relied on that rejection, the collector is estopped from asserting the existence of a contract. Answer choice D is incorrect because, while it is true that the “mailbox rule” does not apply if an acceptance is sent after a rejection, it generally does apply when the acceptance is sent prior to the rejection.

Question 15

A retail furniture store ordered ten sofas from a manufacturer at $1,000 each, plus shipping, to be delivered and paid for in five equal monthly installments. With the first shipment of two sofas, the manufacturer sent an invoice to the retailer, billing the retailer $2,000 plus shipping. The invoice also noted that the manufacturer retained a security interest in all sofas shipped until the purchase price for all sofas ordered was paid in full. Not happy with the security interest term, the retailer immediately notified the manufacturer that this term was unacceptable. After sending payment for the first two sofas, the retailer told the manufacturer not to send any more sofas. The manufacturer sued the retailer for breach of contract. In the breach of contract action by the manufacturer against the retailer, what will be the result?

Answer 15

You Selected: The manufacturer will prevail, but can only enforce the terms of the original offer.

Answer choice B is correct. Even if the manufacturer included an additional term in its acceptance and the retailer objected to that term, a contract was still formed on the terms of the original offer. Answer choice A is incorrect because, regardless of whether both parties are merchants, the retailer did not have a right to refuse to perform the contract; a contract was formed based on the original terms. The fact that the retailer objected to the term means that it would not be part of the contract regardless of the parties’ status as merchants. Answer choice C is incorrect because the knock-out rule, which applies to conflicting terms proposed by merchant parties, does not itself serve as a basis to void a contract. Under the knock-out rule, different terms in the offer and acceptance nullify each other and are “knocked out” of the contract. Answer choice D is incorrect because, even though the security interest term materially affected the bargain by altering the remedies available to the manufacturer if the store failed to pay, the retailer nonetheless was required to perform the contract per the original terms.

Question 16

A publishing company entered into a contract to purchase a newspaper company. The contract specified that “it shall be a condition precedent to buyer’s obligation to pay that the newspaper shall have 200,000 subscribers by December 31 of this year.” In anticipation of the purchase, the publishing company purchased $200,000 of new equipment to be used in printing the newspaper; the newspaper was aware of the investment. At the end of the business day on December 31, the newspaper had only 199,750 subscribers, and had no justification for the shortfall. The publishing company immediately redirected $100,000 of the new equipment to print one of its magazines, but the other $100,000 of equipment was custom-made for the newspaper and could not be used elsewhere. The publishing company refused to go through with the sale, and then sued the newspaper company for $100,000. Is the publishing company likely to prevail?

Answer 16

Correct Answer: No, because failure of a condition precedent does not give rise to damages.

Answer choice D is correct. The claim for $100,000 is a claim for reliance damages, which may be recovered if the nonbreaching party incurs expenses in reasonable reliance upon the promise that the other would perform.

Here, however, there is no breach, because the 200,000 subscriber requirement was a condition precedent, and not a promise. The failure of a promise is a breach, and gives rise to damages, while the failure of a condition merely relieves a party of the obligation to perform. Consequently, the publishing company need not perform by meeting its obligation to pay, but it is not entitled to damages. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while it correctly describes the condition and the failure of the newspaper company, it reaches the wrong conclusion. Answer choice B is incorrect because the mitigation of damages is irrelevant, given that the failure to satisfy a condition does not generally give rise to damages. Answer choice C is incorrect because, since the condition precedent was express, it must be complied with fully; substantial compliance is not sufficient.

Question 18

A buyer who was not a merchant entered into a written contract to purchase a new car from a dealer at a cost of $35,000. Since the buyer desired a particular combination of features on the car and the dealer did not have a car with such features in its inventory, the dealer ordered the car from the manufacturer. When the car arrived, the dealer discovered that the manufacturer had increased the dealer’s price for the car by five percent. Acting in good faith, the dealer sought to increase the buyer’s price of the new car by a similar percentage. Reluctantly, the buyer orally agreed to the price increase, then had a change of heart and refused to complete the purchase. The car dealer eventually sold the car to another customer for $35,000. The dealer sued the buyer to recover damages for breach of contract. Will the dealer be entitled to damages?

Answer 18

Correct Answer: No, because the price increase was not in writing.

Answer choice B is correct. The UCC Statute of Frauds generally requires that a modified contract be in writing where the value of the goods is $500 or more. There is an exception for specially manufactured goods, but for this exception to apply, the goods cannot be suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business. Because the dealer sold the car to another customer, this exception would not apply. Since the written evidence of the parties’ agreement fixed the price of the car at $35,000 and the dealer received this amount from another customer, the dealer would not be entitled to damages. Answer choice A is incorrect because the preexisting duty rule does not apply to a sale of goods governed by the UCC. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the UCC permits a good faith modification of a contract without consideration, the Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of an oral modification. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as noted with respect to answer choice B, the exception to the Statute of Frauds for specially manufactured goods does not apply where the seller can sell the goods in the ordinary course of business.

Question 19

An auto collector hired a restorer to refurbish a classic car she had purchased at an auction. The written restoration agreement was signed by the collector and the restorer, and contained only an identification of the vehicle, an enumerated list of the work that was to be done, and the price for the job. The agreement specified, among other things, that the car’s engine was to be replaced. When the collector was shown the restored car, she was upset that the engine that was in the car when it was purchased had not been rebuilt, since the complete replacement of the car’s engine lowered the value of the car as a classic. The collector refused to pay the agreed-upon price for the restoration, and instead filed suit against the restorer for breach of contract. At trial, the collector seeks to introduce a note in her handwriting that she had shown to the restorer prior to the execution of the agreement that contained the phrase “rebuild engine.” Is this note admissible?

Answer 19

Correct Answer: No, because of the parol evidence rule.

Answer choice C is correct. Generally, the parol evidence rule prevents a party to a written contract from presenting other evidence that contradicts the terms of the contract as written. If a document is determined not to be “integrated,” the parol evidence rule may not apply. When documents are only partially integrated, the parties are permitted to present extrinsic evidence only as long as the evidence is consistent with the writing. In this case, the note is inadmissible, regardless of whether the written agreement is a partial or complete integration, because the note contradicts the agreement with regard to the restoration work to be performed on the engine. Answer choice A is incorrect because, even in a partially integrated agreement, the parol evidence may not contradict the writing. Answer choice B is incorrect because the parol evidence rule applies to any previous or contemporaneous evidence prior to integration, not just oral evidence. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the contract is not governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, the parol evidence rule nevertheless applies to the transaction.

Question 20

A retail store that specialized in glass objects entered into a written contract to purchase 100 hand-blown glass ornaments from an artisan. Because of the artisan’s popularity, the store paid in full for the ornaments at the time that the contract was executed. The contract specified that the store would pick up the ornaments after notification that they were ready. The contract contained no other terms related to delivery of the ornaments and did not allocate the risk of loss. When the ornaments were ready, the artisan notified the store. The parties arranged for the store to pick up the packaged ornaments no later than 2:00 pm the next day. The employee assigned by the store to make the pickup did not arrive until 6:00 pm. In the late afternoon just before the store employee arrived, a short but intense storm caused a large, healthy tree on the artisan’s property to fall over and destroy all the ornaments. Neither party had insured the ornaments against such a loss. Who bears the risk of the loss with respect to the ornaments?

Answer 20

Correct Answer: The store, because the artisan’s insurance did not cover the loss.

Answer choice B is correct. The UCC provides that a merchant seller generally retains the risk of loss in the absence of a contract term to the contrary until the buyer receives the goods. However, if the buyer is in breach of the contract, the risk of loss passes to the buyer to the extent of any deficiency in the seller’s insurance coverage. Here, the store, as buyer, was in breach of the contract by failing to pick up the ornaments by 2:00 pm. Although the UCC only requires that the delivery time be “reasonable” in the absence of a specific contract term, the parties here modified the contract in that regard by agreeing that the seller should pick up the ornaments by 2:00 pm. Consequently, answer choice B is correct and answer choice C is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the risk of loss passes to the buyer upon tender of delivery of the goods when the seller is not a merchant, the artisan here is a merchant (he has specialized knowledge or skill peculiar to glass ornaments). Consequently, the risk of loss does not pass until the buyer receives the goods unless the buyer is in breach of the contract (as was the case here). Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the store, as buyer, was a merchant with respect to the ornaments, this status is irrelevant to the issue of risk of loss. It is the seller’s status as a merchant that can delay the shift in the risk of loss from the tender of delivery by the seller to the buyer’s actual receipt of the goods.

Question 21

A homeowner hired a contractor to paint the homeowner’s residence. The written contract stated that it was the parties’ final and complete agreement and that all prior agreements between the parties merged into the written document. Prior to executing the contract, the contractor noted debris in the gutters of the residence. The contractor stated that to prevent such debris from adversely affecting the painting, the gutters should be cleaned. The contractor offered to do this prior to undertaking the painting for $600. The homeowner orally agreed. The homeowner and the contractor then signed the written contract, which did not mention cleaning the gutters. The contractor performed all of the work called for in the written contract as well as cleaning the gutters. The homeowner paid the amount specified in the written contract, but refused to pay an additional $600 for the cleaning of the gutters. In a breach of contract action by the contractor against the homeowner to recover the $600 payment, which of the following is the strongest argument that the homeowner can make to prevent the contractor from recovering?

Answer 21

Correct Answer: The contract was a complete integration of the agreement between the contractor and the homeowner.

Answer choice C is correct. Generally, the parol evidence rule prevents a party to a written contract from presenting other evidence that contradicts or is inconsistent with the terms of the contract as written. Specifically, when a writing is the complete integration of the parties’ agreement, evidence of a prior or contemporaneous agreement between the parties is generally not admissible. Answer choice A is incorrect because terms that supplement a written agreement are admissible only if the writing is a partial integration of the parties’ agreement. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while the Statute of Frauds does require that a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more be in writing, the Statute of Frauds generally does not prevent enforcement of an oral agreement for the provision of services valued above $500. Answer choice D is incorrect because the parol evidence rule does not bar all evidence of an oral agreement between parties who have entered into a written contract. For example, the parol evidence rule does not apply when a party is raising a defense to the formation of a contract, establishing a defense to the enforcement of a contract, evidencing a separate deal, proving a condition precedent, clarifying an ambiguity, proving subsequent agreements, or making certain clarifications under the UCC.

Question 22

An auto dealership sold a limited-production luxury vehicle as part of its business. It typically sold very few of the vehicles per year, but continued the business because it earned $25,000 in profit on each sale. The vehicles sold at retail for $150,000. A car buyer entered into a contract with the dealership to purchase one of these vehicles with the color scheme and options she desired, which the dealership ordered from the manufacturer. She signed a written order form and put down a $50,000 deposit on the vehicle. The form specified that, in the event that the buyer failed to purchase the vehicle, the deposit was non-refundable, representing liquidated damages that did not constitute a penalty. Later, the car buyer found a better price on an identical vehicle at another dealership, and purchased that vehicle. She demanded the return of her deposit, but the dealership refused. The dealership had difficulty selling the car, and eventually had to sell it at the discounted price of $100,000. The car buyer filed a lawsuit seeking to void the non-refundable deposit provision of the order form and seeking the return of her deposit. Is she likely to prevail?

Answer 22

Correct Answer: No, because the deposit was reasonable in relation to the actual damages the dealership suffered.

Answer choice D is correct. Liquidated damages are damages stipulated by the parties in the contract as a reasonable estimation of actual damages to be recovered in the event of a breach without proof of actual loss. When the contract contains a liquidated-damages clause, the party seeking to repudiate that clause must show that the agreed-to damage is so exorbitant as to be in the nature of a penalty. While the deposit was twice as large as the dealership could have estimated its damages would be in the event of a breach by the buyer, the deposit ended up being exactly equal to the dealership’s actual damages. Consequently, the woman will not prevail, making answer choice A incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the uniqueness of a good is a factor in an action for specific performance, it is irrelevant with regard to the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although a court may consider language in the contract stating that the liquidated damages provision is not a penalty, such an exculpatory term is not controlling.

Question 23

A man recently inherited an extensive collection of beetles from his father, a famous entomologist. The man called a local natural history museum to offer the collection in exchange for the museum’s promise to use the beetles in an exhibit named after the man’s father. The museum told the man that they did not currently have the time or space to create a new exhibit, but that they may be interested at a later time. The man told the museum that his offer would remain open for at least one month. A week later, a university called the man and offered him $5,000 in exchange for the collection. The man’s father had been one of their most successful graduates, and the university wanted to display his collection in their library. The man agreed and delivered the beetle collection in exchange for the money. One week later, the museum learned that the father’s entire collection was already on display in the library of the father’s university. The museum immediately called the man to accept his offer, but the man could no longer deliver the collection. If the museum sues the man to enforce his offer to give them the beetle collection, which of the following is the man’s strongest defense?

Answer 23

Correct Answer: The man’s offer was revoked before the museum attempted to accept it.

Answer choice B is correct. In general, an offer can be revoked by the offeror at any time prior to acceptance, even if it states it will remain open for a specific amount of time, unless the offer is a firm offer or is made irrevocable by an option contract. If the offeree acquires reliable information that the offeror has taken definite action inconsistent with the offer, the offer is automatically revoked by a constructive revocation. Here, the offer remained revocable because it was not a firm offer under the UCC or an option supported by valid consideration. The museum learned that the man had already given the collection to another party before it tried to accept the offer. Therefore, the offer was constructively revoked. Answer choice A is incorrect. Even if the man had made this assurance in writing, it would not become a firm offer under the UCC because the man is not a merchant. Although it was not a firm offer, the man’s offer could still be accepted by the museum provided that the offer had not been revoked by the man or otherwise constructively revoked. As discussed above, the offer was constructively revoked and thus could not be accepted. Answer choice C is incorrect. The man was not a merchant and therefore his promise not to revoke did not create an irrevocable offer under the UCC firm offer rule. Moreover, the man’s promise not to revoke did not create an irrevocable option because the promise was not supported by consideration on behalf of the museum. However, this only means that the offer was not irrevocable; the offer could still be accepted, unless it was properly revoked by the man or if the museum acquired reliable information that the man had taken definite action inconsistent with the offer, thereby automatically revoking the offer. The offer to the museum was automatically revoked here as discussed above. Answer choice D is incorrect because the man offered to give the museum the collection in exchange for the museum’s promise to use the beetles in an exhibit named after the man’s father. Therefore, this was a bilateral offer, not an offer to make a gift without an expectation of consideration.

Question 24

An American helicopter manufacturer contracted with a foreign hospital located in a severely war-torn region to sell five helicopters specially outfitted for medical use. The helicopter manufacturer, in turn, contracted with a subcontractor to provide five flight systems for use in the helicopters. The subcontractor was not informed about the contract between the helicopter manufacturer and the foreign hospital, nor the location where the helicopters would be used. After the two contracts were formed, the country in which the hospital was located descended deeply into civil war. The United Nations imposed an embargo against all shipments to that country. The helicopter manufacturer directed the subcontractor to stop all work on the contract, and to place any completed systems into storage. At that point, the subcontractor had finished three of the five flight systems called for by the subcontract. The systems were custom-built, and could not be used for any other purpose. The subcontractor sued the helicopter manufacturer for breach of contract. Is the subcontractor likely to prevail?

Answer 24

Correct Answer: Yes, because the helicopter manufacturer assumed the risk of the failure of the contract.

Answer choice B is correct. The defense of impracticability may be raised if performance has become illegal after the formation of the contract. However, the defense is unavailable to a party who has assumed the risk of an event happening that makes performance impracticable. Here, the helicopter manufacturer entered into a contract with the subcontractor knowing that the helicopters were to be used in a “severely war-torn region.” The subcontractor was not informed of this information, and consequently had no opportunity to assess the risk involved in the contract. Consequently, it can be fairly said that the helicopter manufacturer assumed the risk, and cannot advance the defense of impracticability. For that reason, answer choice C is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because the subcontractor was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the manufacturer and the hospital. A third-party beneficiary contract results when the parties to a contract intend that the performance by one of the parties is to benefit a third person who is not a party to the contract. Because the foreign hospital and the helicopter manufacturer did not have this intent when they entered their contract, the subcontractor was not a third-party beneficiary to their contract. Answer choice D is incorrect because, for the defense of frustration of purpose to be invoked, the triggering event, if not completely unforeseeable, must be unexpected and not a realistic prospect. The hospital was in a “severely war-torn region” and consequently an embargo was a realistic prospect at the time of contract formation.

Question 25

A hospital placed an order to purchase scalpel blades from a medical supply company. The hospital specified that the blades were to be shipped immediately. Upon receipt of the order, the supply company discovered that it did not have the type of blade ordered by the hospital, and shipped instead a different type of blade, along with a note that these blades were not the type ordered by the hospital but were sent as an accommodation. The hospital rejected and returned the shipped blades, then sued the supply company for breach of contract. Will the hospital be successful in its suit?

Answer 25

Correct Answer: No, because the medical supply company did not accept the hospital’s offer.

Answer choice D is correct. Normally a shipment of goods by a seller made in response to an order placed by the buyer constitutes acceptance of the buyer’s offer. Such a shipment does not constitute acceptance, however, if the seller indicates that the shipped goods are made as accommodation. Since the supply company so designated the blades that it sent, the shipment did not constitute acceptance. Consequently, no contract was formed, so there can be no breach. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the perfect tender rule does apply to a sale of goods, such as scalpel blades, it applies only when a contract exists between the buyer and seller. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a seller may accept a buyer’s offer by shipment of the goods, as well as by a promise to ship the goods, a shipment of goods as an accommodation does not constitute an acceptance of the buyer’s offer. Answer choice C is incorrect because a seller’s shipment of goods in response to a buyer’s order can constitute acceptance even if the goods do not conform to the contract.

Question 26

A mother was in a canoe with her young son on a river. As the son leaned over the edge of the canoe to watch some ducks swim by, he fell into the river. The son could not swim and began to drown, so the mother jumped into the river to save him. However, she could not find him in the choppy water. A nearby fisherman saw the incident, jumped into the water, and saved the drowning boy by carrying him to the riverbank. In doing so, the fisherman was forced to drop the expensive fishing pole he was using to catch fish in the river, losing it forever. When the woman met the fisherman on the riverbank, she thanked him and promised to repay him for the lost fishing pole within the week. A week later, when the fisherman asked for the money, the mother changed her mind and told him she would not pay for his fishing pole.

Assuming that none of the parties can be found negligent, under the common law, can the fisherman recover the cost of his fishing pole from the mother?

Answer 26

Correct Answer: No, because the mother’s promise to pay for the fishing pole is not supported by consideration.

Answer choice A is correct.

Under the common law, something given in the past is typically not good consideration because it could not have been bargained for, nor could it have been done in reliance upon a promise.

Therefore, the fisherman’s rescue of the son cannot be valid consideration for an enforceable contract between the mother and the fisherman. Answer choice B is incorrect. Most courts conclude that consideration exists if there is a detriment to the promisee, irrespective of the benefit to the promisor. A minority of courts look to either a detriment or a benefit, not requiring both. The Second Restatement asks only whether there was a bargained-for exchange. Regardless of what approach applies here, the mere fact that the mother did not receive the benefit under the contract would be insufficient to conclude that there was no valid consideration. Additionally, she did receive the benefit of not losing her son. Answer choice C is incorrect. When a plaintiff confers a benefit upon a defendant and the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of compensation, allowing the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff would be unjust. In that case, the court can permit the plaintiff to recover the value of the benefit to prevent unjust enrichment. Here, even if the fisherman reasonably expected compensation for his rescue of the boy, the proper remedy would be the value of the benefit he conferred upon the mother (i.e., the value of the son’s life). Therefore, even if the fisherman successfully brought a claim under an implied-in-law contract theory of recovery, the proper remedy would be the value of the benefit as restitution, not the costs he incurred in conferring the benefit. Answer choice D is incorrect because even though the fisherman suffered a detriment, it was not a bargained-for detriment. Therefore, his past act performed before the mother promised to pay for his fishing pole cannot be valid consideration to enforce that promise.