Chapter 12 – Consideration
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES:
1. Yes. Skebba fully performed on his duties in reliance on the promise, which was exactly
what Kasch hoped for and expected. To allow Kasch to escape liability would be unjust.
2. No. The promissory language of the 1968 handbook and the oral promise made to Ross and
given in exchange for his labor was an enforceable contract. Under the common law of
3. No. The court found that Stanley provided no consideration for the release. Stanley and
Hemmelgarn had agreed to construct the worship facility for $66,000. The men took draws
against this amount, but they were not hourly laborers. The payments were draws against
4. No. The debt between the two was liquidated (certain and owing). Kyung-Hu agreed to
5. Yes. A charitable pledge can be enforceable if there is either consideration for the promise
or reliance on the part of the donee. Although the plaintiff argued that Boston University
6. No. The court stated that for a contract to be valid, both parties must provide consideration.
When a promise puts constraints on what a party may do in the future—i.e., if it essentially
7. No. The court found that there was no consideration because past consideration is not
sufficient to support a contract. It stated that, “[t]he 1997 conveyance of land to Corrine
12-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 – Consideration
8. No. The court found that the exchange of promises was adequate consideration for the
contract and the contract was not defeated by the false recital. The court determined that
9. Yes. Rowan was allowed to continue with the test on the third day on the slope, which he
would not have necessarily had the legal right to do. Even though he was the majority of
10. The problem with the promise to pay a bonus for timely performance is that Tinker was under
a pre-existing contractual obligation to complete the building on time. When Scroge promised
to pay more for the timely performance of that obligation, Tinker did not give anything in
12-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.