written response to problem 7
For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.
One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.
For most problems you should be able to answer in a page I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.
7. Dr. James Taylor was employed as president of the Uni- versity of the Cumberlands for 35 years beginning in August 1980. Over the course of a decade, the univer- sity entered into and reaffirmed a commitment to an agreement to provide Dr. Taylor and his wife, Dinah Taylor, with compensation for life following Dr. Taylor's retirement from the position of president. The univer- sity further agreed to provide a number of retirement benefits to Dr. and Mrs. Taylor after his retirement from the presidency, including health insurance ben- efits, and the university agreed to provide the Taylors with a residence or apartment in Williamsburg, Ken- tucky, where the university is located. The agreementindicated that Dr. Taylor would serve in the newly cre- ated position of chancellor for as long as he pleased and Mrs. Taylor would continue to serve as "ambas- sador" for the university. They had been prolific fund- raisers for the university, and they agreed to continue with those efforts even after Dr. Taylor's retirement. When Dr. Taylor retired, the Trustees reaffirmed their commitment to the agreement, but after a while they tried to reduce the amount of benefits owed to Dr. and Mrs. Taylor by offering Dr. Taylor a one-year renewable contract that provided for a reduced salary that was significantly less than had been provided for in the dis- puted agreement. Dr. Taylor refused, claiming that the university was contractually bound to the agreement to provide the benefits and pay to him and Mrs. Taylor for life. The university countered that the agreement was not enforceable as a contract because the Taylors pro- vided no legal value for it. According to the university, the agreement was entered into solely based upon the plaintiffs' past performance, which could not serve as valid consideration. They pointed to language in the agreement and resolution that "The University of the Cumberlands and the Board of Trustees agree that the compensation and benefits contained in this agree- ment is/are for the past decades of duties and/or work performed by Dr. and Mrs. Taylor all for the benefit of The University of the Cumberlands." Was the university correct to argue that it had no contractual obligation to the Taylors due to a lack of consideration

Question

written response to problem 7

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

7. Dr. James Taylor was employed as president of the Uni- versity of the Cumberlands for 35 years beginning in August 1980. Over the course of a decade, the univer- sity entered into and reaffirmed a commitment to an agreement to provide Dr. Taylor and his wife, Dinah Taylor, with compensation for life following Dr. Taylor's retirement from the position of president. The univer- sity further agreed to provide a number of retirement benefits to Dr. and Mrs. Taylor after his retirement from the presidency, including health insurance ben- efits, and the university agreed to provide the Taylors with a residence or apartment in Williamsburg, Ken- tucky, where the university is located. The agreementindicated that Dr. Taylor would serve in the newly cre- ated position of chancellor for as long as he pleased and Mrs. Taylor would continue to serve as "ambas- sador" for the university. They had been prolific fund- raisers for the university, and they agreed to continue with those efforts even after Dr. Taylor's retirement. When Dr. Taylor retired, the Trustees reaffirmed their commitment to the agreement, but after a while they tried to reduce the amount of benefits owed to Dr. and Mrs. Taylor by offering Dr. Taylor a one-year renewable contract that provided for a reduced salary that was significantly less than had been provided for in the dis- puted agreement. Dr. Taylor refused, claiming that the university was contractually bound to the agreement to provide the benefits and pay to him and Mrs. Taylor for life. The university countered that the agreement was not enforceable as a contract because the Taylors pro- vided no legal value for it. According to the university, the agreement was entered into solely based upon the plaintiffs' past performance, which could not serve as valid consideration. They pointed to language in the agreement and resolution that "The University of the Cumberlands and the Board of Trustees agree that the compensation and benefits contained in this agree- ment is/are for the past decades of duties and/or work performed by Dr. and Mrs. Taylor all for the benefit of The University of the Cumberlands." Was the university correct to argue that it had no contractual obligation to the Taylors due to a lack of consideration