6 Chapter Eight
6. Marcie and Bruce have a valid, bilateral contract. It was executory, which allows for the possibility
that rights might be assigned and duties might be delegated. The subject matter of the contract is
specially manufactured goods.
Bruce entered into a second contract with Shadoe. Both parties have partially performed their
promises, and outstanding contractual obligations still exist. The subject matter of the
delegator, Bruce, and so Marcie really has no reason to object. (However, of course, she was foolish
to deliver the glider before getting paid the sales price of $18,000.)
Despite the delegation of his duty to pay, from Bruce to Shadoe, Bruce remained contractually
responsible. A delegation may create new liability, but it cannot extinguish prior liability without
the express consent of the obligee for payment (Marcie, here). In other words, Marcie did not agree
7. This is an illusory promise, or no promise at all, because performance depends solely on the
decision of the teacher. There is no bargained-for consideration. The statement merely declares that
the professor may or may not do something in the future, based on undefined criteria. The
professor’s statement declares: “If you have worked hard…” (How hard?); “…and continue to
perform at a high level…” (How high? By how many of the students?); “…I will pay for a pizza
party…” (Where? When? Costing how much?); “…if I think it is warranted…” (What do I think?
Who says so?) The source of this question is a law school professor who routinely discussed having
8. No. The court found that the consideration was insufficient to support the contract. The court
determined that the alleged consideration created no detriment to the plaintiff, the alleged promisee.
The plaintiff had been named after his grandfather several months before the alleged oral contract
was made. The court stated that “past or moral consideration is not sufficient to support an
executory contract.” The plaintiff argued that his love and affection constituted sufficient