| Author |
|
cpa0123
Major Contributor
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 at 12:46 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Smith offers a $10,000 reward for recovery of his kidnapped daughter. Jones, a police officer assigned to this case, recovers the daughter. Jones's performance of his official duty is not sufficient consideration since there is a preexisting legal duty on his part.
My question is: Will Jones be able to prevail on the grounds on unilateral contract since there was a promise made by Smith & Jones had already performed??
Another question:
Kay, an art collector, promised Hammer, an art student, that if Hammer count obtain certain rare artifacts within 2 weeks, Kay would pay for Hammer's postgraduate education. At considerable effort & expense, Hammer obtained the special artifacts within the 2 week period. When Hammer requested payment, Kay refused. Kay claimed that there was no consideration for the promise. Hammer would prevail against Kay based on:
a) Unilateral contract
b) Unjust enrichment
c) Public policy
d) Quasi contract
Answer is A.
I can understand why answer is A in the 2nd question but i am not sure if using the grounds of unilateral contract is a valid reason in 1st question. Can someone clear my confusion?
__________________
FAR-11/21/09 [97]
REG-02/06/10 [95]
BEC-04/03/10 [85]
AUD-07/07/10 [93]
Colorado board
I am done!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
amndchr2
Contributor
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 at 14:36 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Unilateral is not a valid reason in the 1st question since the officer already has a preexisting legal duty to perform. Consideration does not exist if an existing duty was imposed by law or a person is already under contract to render a specified performance. The art student can collect under unilateral contract due to the fact he was not obligated by law to already do so. Hope this helps :)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
cpa0123
Major Contributor
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 at 14:57 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thank you! In the first question, if Jones was not a cop, would he prevail on the grounds of unilateral contract?
As per my understanding based on your explanation, it is the preexisting legal liability that determines whether the plaintiff would prevail or not in the absence of a consideration. Correct me if i am wrong.
__________________
FAR-11/21/09 [97]
REG-02/06/10 [95]
BEC-04/03/10 [85]
AUD-07/07/10 [93]
Colorado board
I am done!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
amndchr2
Contributor
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 at 16:03 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes you are correct - if an ordinary individual was aware of the offer and found the daughter, he/she would be able to prevail under unilateral contract.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
cpa0123
Major Contributor
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 at 16:15 | IP Logged
|
|
|
amandchr2-Thanks for clarifying :)
When have you scheduled your exam? Have you finished studying all chapters once?
__________________
FAR-11/21/09 [97]
REG-02/06/10 [95]
BEC-04/03/10 [85]
AUD-07/07/10 [93]
Colorado board
I am done!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Topic: R5-consideration question
Topic Closed)
