Chapter 12 – Consideration
12-4
© 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.
suit based on a breach of the agreement). Ask the students whether the defendant gave
consideration. Pick one student to present the defendant’s argument that there was no
consideration (i.e., that the defendant already owed more; that the defendant was not
pursuing any challenge to the judgment, so the agreement to drop any challenges didn’t
do anything; and that the plaintiff didn’t really get anything else of value, because
plaintiff already could accomplish everything else defendant agreed to do by other
means). Have another student present the counterargument from the plaintiff’s
perspective (i.e., that defendant had no obligation to do the payment plan, provide the
of consideration.)
Additional Examples: The following Gottlieb case (p. 384) also implicates the issue of
adequacy in addition to bargained-for exchange.
Meram v. MacDonald (text case in Chapter 10)—consideration given by Meram was
doing the requested acts of putting his business card in the basket and staying until the
end of the presentation, Problem Case #9.
consideration is subject.
1) Inadequacy “on the face” of the agreement may justify denying enforcement.
capacity.
a party seeking to enforce the agreement.
4) Many courts will not enforce agreements supported by mere nominal
for.
5) A few courts have simply refused to enforce contracts involving consideration
which is so inadequate as to “shock the conscience of the court.” There are a few
recent Code cases where consumer contracts involving grossly unfair price
provisions have been stricken down as unconscionable under section 2-302.
Day v. Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. (p.386): Day represented a class of “Independent
Representatives” for Fortune Hi–Tech Marketing, Inc. (“FHTM), which was a multi-level
marketing company. Day sued FHTM under state and federal consumer protection and
anti-racketeering laws on the theory that FHTM was an illegal pyramid scheme. FHTM