Tina promises her husband Frank $50 if he will not drive in an intoxicated state over the weekend, and Frank agrees to stay away from driving after drinking. Which of the following is true regarding that agreement?

• The agreement is not supported by consideration because the parties are married.

• The agreement is supported by consideration on the part of Tina, but it is supported by consideration on the part of Frank only if it can be established that he had previously driven in an intoxicated state.

• The agreement is supported by consideration on the part of both Tina and Frank and is enforceable.

• Franks promise does not constitute consideration.

Which of the following was the result in Wethington v. Swainson, the case in the text involving a minor injured during skydiving lessons and the attempted disaffirmance of a release of liability in favor of the provider signed by the minor and the minors parents?

• That because the parents also signed the release regarding prospective dangers, it could not be disaffirmed by the minor.

• That because a known and ultrahazardous activity was involved, the release could not be disaffirmed.

• That parents of a minor may not release a minors prospective claims for negligence, and that the minor could disaffirm.

• That the minor could disaffirm only if she could prove that the defendant failed to sufficiently set forth the prospective dangers and that, otherwise, the minors signature and that of the parents was effective.

Concerned about barking, Lee pays her neighbor Wanda $100 to refrain from buying a dog. The agreement is:

• Supported by consideration.

• Not supported by consideration.

• Supported by conditional consideration.

• Enforceable by Lee but not by Wanda