Harold, who just accepted a job in Europe, decided to sell his house and his car. After some discussion Maude signs a valid written contract for the purchase of the house for $200,000 and the car for $4,000. Before either the house or the car is conveyed to Maude some problems develop.

While Maude is measuring the basement rooms for her rugs she discovers water leakage into the basement. Harold and Maude never discussed the subject of water leakage previously and Harold claims he never had this problem during his three years in the house. Maude points to the newly applied paint, which she claims that Harold has employed to cover the leak. Harold denies this. Maude indicates her unwillingness to proceed with the purchase because she can't put fine rugs and furniture in a basement that leaks. After much discussion, Harold and Maude agree on a new deal and sign a new contract that is identical in all other respects for the sale of the house for $190,000.

A few days later, Maude calls Harold on the phone very upset about the purchase of the car. On Sunday she had seen advertisements for similar cars for a good deal less money and she discovers that she mistakenly agreed to pay Harold $500 over the "blue book" price of the car. After a long conversation, Harold agrees to pay Maude's demand to lower the price to $3500 and the parties execute a written, signed agreement to this effect. At the time for conveyance of the car and house, Harold demands the original prices and refuses to convey either for less money. Advise Maude of her legal rights with respect to both of these contracts. In doing so be sure to address these questions (at a minimum).

a. If Haroldhad notlowered the price on the house, what legal arguments could Maude have made to get out of the contract.Explain fully.

b. Is there any consideration present to support Harold's promise to lower the price of the house and the car?