If Becky (an adult) promises not to drink apple juice for three years in exchange for Ben's promise of $1,100, the agreement is:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: If Becky (an adult) promises not to drink apple juice for three years in exchange for Ben's promise of $1,100, the agreement is:
Option 1: not enforceable because Becky can always drink apple juice and could disaffirm the contract. This is flawed because the ability to drink apple juice in the future does not automatically negate consideration or enforceability if Becky voluntarily gives up a right she would otherwise have; the key issue is consideration, not potential future behavior. Disaffirmation concerns usually minors or contracts involving lack of capacity, not a fully competent adult who freely relinquishes a right in exchange for consideration.
Option 2: not enforceable because Becky does not have a legal right to drink apple juice. In contract law, a promise to refrain from a legal activity can be enforceable if it constitutes consideration for a return promise; you don’t need a legal “right” to abstain to create a binding obligation. The focus is on giving up something of value (a forbearance) in exchange for consideration, not on possession of a special legal right.
Option 3: enforceable because Becky is giving up the right to do something she would otherwise be entitled to do. This aligns with the doctrine of forbearance as valid consideration. Becky’s promise to abstain from a legal activity (drinking apple juice) for a period in exchange for money is a classic example of forbearance sufficient for consideration, making the contract enforceable if other elements (offer, acceptance, mutual assent, legality, capacity) are present.
Option 4: enforceable because the agreement is above $1000.00. The amount alone does not determine enforceability. While some contracts over a certain threshold may trigger additional formalities in specific contexts, general contract enforceability hinges on offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, legality, and mutual assent, not simply the presence of a sum greater than $1,000.
Summary of reasoning across options: The core concept here is consideration via forbearance. A promise to refrain from a legal right is a valid consideration if the forbearance constitutes giving up something of value and is bargained for in exchange for promised performance. The other options misconstrue the role of forbearance, the notion of a “right” to drink, or rely on money amount as a determinative factor for enforceability rather than on the lawful exchange of promises.

If Becky (an adult) promises not to drink apple juice for three years in exchange for Ben's promise of $1,100, the agreement is:Single choice

Similar Questions

Joey owes Chandler $5,000 for past rent, acting lessons, and tap dance lessons. Joey offers Chandler a one-of-a-kind movie ticket to his next big movie premier as payment of his debt. Chandler accepts Joey's offer. Which of the following statements is/are true:

Soupy Sales makes a big sale for XYZ Corporation. Afterward the company promises Soupy a $5,000 year-end bonus. The company's promise is unenforceable.

Courts generally do not consider the economic adequacy of consideration when deciding whether to enforce a contract.

Which one of the following is NOT good consideration for a promise to sell a car?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler