I need major help with these questions on 'Reviewing: Consideration'

260 UNIT THREE Contracts and E-Contracts Teresa had reasonably relied on their promise in financ ing construction of a house to her detriment ($200,000). 13-4c Charitable Subscriptions The court concluded that enforcing the promise was the A charitable subscription is a promise to make a dona- only way to avoid injustice in this situation. tion to a religious, educational, or charitable institution. Traditionally, such promises were unenforceable because 13-4b Promises to Pay Debts they are not supported by legally sufficient consideration. Barred by a Statute of Limitations A gift, after all, is the opposite of bargained-for consider- ation. The modern view, however, is to make exceptions Statutes of limitations in all states require a creditor to to the general rule by applying the doctrine of promis- sue within a specified period to recover a debt. If the sory estoppel. creditor fails to sue in time, recovery of the debt is barred EXAMPLE 13.11 A church solicits and receives by the statute of limitations. pledges (commitments to contribute funds) from church A debtor who promises to pay a previous debt even members to erect a new church building. On the basis though recovery is barred by the statute of limitations makes of these pledges, the church purchases land, hires archi- an enforceable promise. The promise needs no consideration. tects, and makes other contracts that change its position. (Some states, however, require that it be in writing.) In Because of the church's detrimental reliance, a court effect, the promise extends the limitations period, and the may enforce the pledges under the theory of promissory creditor can sue to recover the entire debt or at least the estoppel. Alternatively, a court may find consideration in amount promised. The promise can be implied if the debtor the fact that each promise was made in reliance on the acknowledges the barred debt by making a partial payment. other promises of support or that the church trustees, by 8 . Harvey v. Dow, 2011 ME 4, 11 A.3d 303 ( 2011 ). accepting the subscriptions, impliedly promised to com- plete the proposed undertaking. Reviewing: Consideration John operates a motorcycle repair shop from his home but finds that his business is limited by the small size of his garage. Driving by a neighbor's property, he notices a for sale sign on a large, metal-sided garage. John contacts the neighbor and offers to buy the building, hoping that it can be dismantled and moved to his own property. The neighbor accepts John's payment and makes a generous offer in return. If John will help him dismantle the garage, which will take a substantial amount of time, he will help John reassemble it after it has been transported to John's property. They agree to have the .tire job completed within two weeks. John spends every day for a week working with his neighbor to disassemble the building. In his rush to acquire a larger workspace, he turns down several lucrative repair jobs. Once the disassembled building has been moved to John's property, however, the neighbor refuses to help John reassemble it as he originally promised. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions. 1. Are the basic elements of consideration present in the neighbor's promise to help John reassemble the garage? Why or why not? 2. Suppose that the neighbor starts to help John but then realizes that putting the building back together will take much more work than dismantling it. Under which principle discussed in the chapter might the neighbor be allowed to ask for additional compensation? 3. What if John's neighbor made his promise to help reassemble the garage at the time he and John were moving it? Suppose he said, "Since you helped me take it down, I will help you put it back up." Would John be able to enforce this promise? Why or why not? Under what doctrine discussed in the chapter might John seek to recover the profits he lost when he turned down repair jobs for one week? Debate This .. . Courts should not be able to rule on the adequacy of consideration. A deal is a deal