As you learned this week, the ancient doctrine of consideration is

simple to state but subtle to apply. The parties must bargain and enter

into an exchange of promises or actions. If they do not, there is no

consideration and the courts are unlikely to enforce any promise made.

A variety of exceptions modify the law, but a party wishing to render its

future more predictable$-$ the purpose of a contract$-$ will rely on a solid

bargain and exchange.

Consider this: Donovan built a house for Callaway, but the foundation

was defective. Callaway agreed to accept the foundation if Donovan

guaranteed to make future repairs by the defects. Donovan agreed but

later refocused to make any repairs. Donovan argued that its promise

to make future repairs was unsupported by consideration.

Discuss who will win the suit, Donovan or Callaway. Is either party

acting unethically? Which one, and why?

Discuss if there are any specific types of agreements $($perhaps high$-$

value, long$-$term, extremely time$-$consuming ones$)$ that should definitely

require consideration?