PART 1:

1. Can $1 be adequate consideration? Why or Why not?

2. Homer and Marge were married in 1980 and had two children, Bart and Lisa. In 2010 they were on the verge of seeking a divorce. Homer had been not living in the home for the past two years. According to Marge's testimony, Homer drank too much and was spending all of the money brought into the home on Buzz and crazy ideas. Homer requested to move back into the home and a meeting took place with all of the family members. Marge stated that he could move in under the following conditions: 1. He get alcohol counseling, 2. give Marge control of the financial accounts, 3. waiver any claim to Marge's pension. The agreement was made orally and the Bart and Lisa testified that Homer agreed to these conditions. Homer agreed the meeting took place, but stated only the first two conditions, not the 3rd happened. Homer returned and in 2013, things went back to the previous issues and the couple separated for the final time. Marge obtained a restraining order which called for his removal from the home and to not have contact with her. The couple went to court and the court awarded Marge 80% of the family assets and denied Homer to any portion of Marge's pension. Homer claimed that he never agreed to condition #3 and he is entitled to part of the pension. Is the oral contract above enforceable? Are Homer's three promises sufficient consideration to permit the court to uphold the decision? How should the court rule?

3. Why does it matter that a contract with a minor is for a necessary?

4. If all you know about a man is that his neighbors think he is crazy, you do not know whether a contact he entered into was valid, voidable or void. Why not?

PART 2:

Case #4
John Harrington, Jr. (“Junior”) is a 24-year-old, 3-pack-per-day smoker. John Harrington, Sr. (“Senior”) is a very concerned parent. On January 1, father announces to son, “Junior, if you will stop smoking for the entire year, I will pay you $5,000.” Senior believes that if Junior will stop smoking for one year, he will “kick the habit.” Junior reluctantly accepts his father’s terms, and extinguishes his half-smoked cigarette with the heel of his boot.

On January 1 of the following year, Junior approaches Senior and says “Dad, time to pay up.” Senior has no reason to doubt that Junior has refrained from smoking for an entire year, but states “Son, this was for your benefit. The gift I have given you is the gift of life, and you are now likely to enjoy that gift longer, because you are now much less likely to contract cancer. Health statistics show that non-smokers live ten years longer than smokers. Enjoy your newfound life, but I will not pay you the $5,000.”

1. Does Senior owe Junior the $5,000? Is there an enforceable contract between father and son?
2. If there is not an enforceable contract, does Junior have any other legal or equitable theory of recovery?
3. Is Senior ethically obligated to pay Junior the $5,000?

PART 3:

Case #5
Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has worked forty hours per week at the local convenience store over the last year, and has diligently saved $6,000 for the purchase of his first car.

While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the “car of his dreams,” a used yellow Camaro. Tommy walks into the dealership, announces to the dealership owner that he is “ready to buy,” negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price, and leaves the dealership a proud car owner.

Over the course of the next six months, Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front fender, and regrets his purchase. He realizes that in two short years college will beckon, and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education. In short, he wants his money back.

On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership, walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his $6,000. The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying “Son, I don’t owe you anything. You’ve just learned a lesson in the ‘School of Hard Knocks.’ The car is still yours, and the money is still mine!”

1.Who will prevail?
2. Is it legal and/or ethical to allow Tommy to escape his contractual obligations?

PART 1: 1. Can $1 be adequate consideration? Why or Why not?...