Substrate Record: qid 1310

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1310 · law

Question: Ann, Bea, and Carla were three friends who lived in the same neighborhood. While Ann was away on a business trip, someone broke into her garage and stole her golf clubs. The next week, Ann was planning to go on vacation and asked Bea if she could borrow her golf clubs. Bea agreed and loaned her golf clubs to Ann, who promised to return them after her vacation. When Ann returned home, she kept the golf clubs and continued to use them. A few weeks later, Bea was having dinner with Carla and learned that Carla owed Ann $4,000. Carla had just been laid off from her job and did not have the money to repay Ann. Bea told Carla that she would contact Ann and make arrangements to repay the loan on her behalf. Thereupon, Ann and Bea entered into a written agreement wherein Bea promised to pay Ann, at a rate of $400 a month, the matured $4,000 debt that Carla owed Ann. In the same written instrument, Ann promised to return Bea's golf clubs, which she still had in her possession. Ann, however, made no written or oral. commitment to forbear to sue Carla to collect the $4,000 debt; and Bea made no oral or written request for any such forbearance. After this agreement between Ann and Bea was signed and executed, Ann promptly returned the golf clubs to Bea. For the next six months, Bea made and Ann accepted the $400 monthly payments as agreed. During that period, Ann, in fact, did forbear to take any legal action against Carla. However, Bea then repudiated her agreement with Ann, and 30 days later Ann filed a contract action against Bea. Assume that the applicable statute of limitations on Ann's antecedent claim against Carla expired the day before Ann filed her contract action against Bea. Which of the following is the most persuasive argument that Bea is not liable to Ann under the terms of their written agreement?

1. Since Ann did not expressly promise to forbear to sue Carla to collect the antecedent $4,000 debt, Ann's forbearance for six months could not constitute consideration for Bea's promise.
2. Since the written agreement between Bea and Ann shows a gross imbalance between the values of the promises exchanged, the consideration for Bea's promise was legally insufficient to support it.
3. Since Carla, when the agreement between Ann and Bea was made, had a pre-existing duty to repay the $4,000 debt to Ann, there was no consideration for Bea's promise to Ann.
4. Since Ann had a pre-existing duty to return Bea's golf clubs to her when the agreement between Ann and Bea was made, there was no consideration for Bea's promise to Ann.

Our answer: D. Since Ann had a pre-existing duty to return Bea's golf clubs to her when the agreement between Ann and Bea was made, there was no consideration for Bea's promise to Ann. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer