Mary promises to give her car to her friend. The friend sells his current car at a fairly
low price because he is expecting to get a nearly new car at no cost from his rich and
generous friend, Mary. Mary changes her mind and decides to keep the car. If the friend
sues Mary, the court most likely will:
A) require Mary to give her friend the car because his sale of his car was consideration.
B) require Mary to give her friend the car because Mary made an illusory promise.
C) not require Mary to do anything because this was a gift promise.
D) based on the theory of promissory estoppel, require Mary to pay damages to the
friend for any loss he incurred in connection with Mary’s not keeping her promise.
E) not require Mary to do anything unless it can be proven that she subjectively
intended to cause her friend monetary difficulty.
Mr. Smith awakens one morning to the sound of construction in his back yard. When he
looks out the window, he sees Ajax Construction Co. apparently erecting a garage on
his property. He had not spoken or contracted with Ajax for this service. However, Mr.
Smith really wanted a new garage, so he let them continue. Later, it was discovered that
the garage was intended to go next door. Ajax sues Mr. Smith for the value of the
garage. What is the probable result?
A) Ajax wins; this is a case of a contract implied-in-fact, and Mr. Smith implicitly
agreed to pay for the garage.
B) Smith wins; there was no contract upon which Ajax could recover, and people are
not liable for benefits that are thrust upon them.
C) Ajax wins; although there is no real contract, this is a case of unjust enrichment, and
because Mr. Smith knew what was going on and accepted the garage, he must pay for it.
D) Smith wins; unjust enrichment does not apply here because Mr. Smith had no duty