Daniel a recent college gradute is on his way home for his christmas holiday break. He gets caught in a snowstorm and is taken in by a elderly couple who provide him with food and shelter. After everything clears Daniel proceeds home. Daniels father fred is appreciative of the elderly couple that he sends a letter promsing to pay them $ 500. The elderly couple accepted, in need of money. Than, because of a dispute between Daniel and Fred, Fred refuese to pay the copuple $500. Do you think the couple can hold fred in contract for the services rendered to Daniel .......
2007-10-29 12:47:28 · 4 answers · asked by Browneyed 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I would say no.
The basic requirements for a formation of a contract are offer, acceptance and consideration.
Obviously the offer in this case was the offer to pay the elderly couple $500 and the acceptance was when they accepted the offer. However the third requirement is not met. Consideration means that they must exchange something of some value (doesn't even have to be equal value) in exchange for the benefit. Although Fred is giving them $500 they have provided nothing in return. The food and shelter was given without knowledge of a reward and therefore they were not acting in reliance (see R v Knight).
Of course the elderly couple could try and force the payment using the doctrine of promissory estoppel (despite it's origfin of being a sheidl not a sword) as this can be used when there is no actual contract, but it is highly unlikely it would meet the required elements. Basically to satisfy this criteria you need to prove:
1. A representation was made (easy that Fred would pay them $500).
2. They relied on this representation to their detriment (harder to prove, although they relied on it what have they suffered as a consequence of this reliance).
3. The behaviour of Fred was unconscionable (I doubt this would be extreme enough to warrant unconscionability).
Good luck!
2007-10-29 15:16:43 · answer #1 · answered by xxalmostfamous1987xx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the case described, the couple did NOT provide anything in exchange for the promise to pay. They voluntarily provided shelter and only later were offered payment. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see a legal contract.
2007-10-29 20:55:41 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
umm, no. refuge of donation is not a crime. well, dont take me for some selfish brat, because i do donate to organizations, but i honestly dont think the couple can hold fred in contract for it.
2007-10-29 19:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Crowley 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What does your casebook say? Study materials? The answer must be in there somewhere.
2007-10-29 21:17:47 · answer #4 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋