Asked by Marinda Carraway on May 03, 2024
Verified
In return for his oral promise to pay her $100, Emma promises her uncle that she will not violate laws against speeding for one year. Emma abides by her promise, but her uncle refuses to pay. Which of the following is true regarding whether Emma is entitled to the money?
A) Emma is entitled to the money because she upheld her part of the bargain.
B) Emma is not entitled to recover because she had a preexisting duty to obey laws against speeding.
C) Emma is not entitled to recover because obeying traffic laws was actually good for her, not something that would constitute a detriment.
D) Emma is not entitled to recover unless the agreement was put under seal.
E) Emma is entitled to recover, but only ½ of the amount, because a family member is involved and the agreement was not in writing.
Preexisting Duty
An obligation that a party is already legally bound to fulfill, which cannot serve as consideration for a new contract.
- Comprehend the effect of past consideration on the validity of contractual commitments.
Verified Answer
ZK
Zybrea KnightMay 05, 2024
Final Answer :
B
Explanation :
Emma is not entitled to recover because she had a preexisting duty to obey laws against speeding. In contract law, a valid contract requires that the promisee (Emma, in this case) must provide consideration, which is something of value or something that involves a legal detriment or forbearance. Since Emma already had a legal obligation to obey traffic laws, her promise to not speed does not constitute valid consideration.
Learning Objectives
- Comprehend the effect of past consideration on the validity of contractual commitments.