The Centennial Apartments catch fire. Irene Idiot hears her fire alarm go off and rushes out of the building. Sadly, she has left her baby, Iggy Idiot, inside. Fireman Frank rushes to the scene, and Ned Neighbor watches the action from across the street. Irene yells, "I'll give $500 to anyone who saves my baby." If Fireman Frank rescues the baby, can he compel Irene to pay him the $500 reward?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presents a contract/benefies scenario involving a reward for saving a baby during a fire, and asks whether Fireman Frank can compel Irene to pay the $500 reward.
Option a: 'No, because he cannot enforce a promise based on past consideration.' This is incorrect because the key issue is not past consideration in isolation, but whether there was a valid consideration for a unilateral contract created by a return promise to pay upon performance. In many jurisdictions, a reward offer is enforceable when the offeree performs the requested act; past consideration does not typically apply here since the act (saving the baby) occurs after the offer is made, not before. The problem frames the reward as contingent on performing the rescue, which can constitute consideration by performance, not past consideration.
Option b: 'No, because he had a preexisting duty.' This is the correct analysis. Fireman Frank already has a legal obligation to rescue or attempt to rescue endangered persons as part of his professional duty and duties to the public. However, the relevant concept is that a preexisting duty does not generally prevent enforcement if there is a modification or a new bargain supported by new consideration. In the classic unilateral-reward scenario, there is no new consideration provided by Frank to Irene beyond the existing duty, so Irene’s promise to pay after performance may be unenforceable if no new consideration exists. Yet in typical bar exam framing, the correct rationale is that Frank cannot compel payment based on a promise from Irene to pay after the fact when he already has a preexisting duty to rescue. Thus, option b aligns with the duty-based reasoning that preexisting duties limit or negate new consideration for a reward promise.
Option c: 'Yes, because there was intention to contract.' While there is an intention to contract implied by offering a reward, intention alone does not create a binding contract if there is no consideration or if the contract is constrained by a preexisting duty. The offer of a reward for performing a service does create an incentive, but the presence of a preexisting duty undermines the formation of a valid enforceable contract unless new consideration is present. Therefore this option overstates the effect of intention alone.
Option d: 'No, because the promise was illusory.' An illusory promise is one that leaves the promisor with discretion to perform or not perform. Here, Irene’s promise to pay $500 contingent on Frank saving the baby is not illusory; it specifies a condition and a concrete payment upon performance. Thus, labeling the promise illusory is inaccurate in this factual setup.
Overall, the reasoning focuses on contract formation principles: offers of rewards evoke unilateral contracts upon performance, but a preexisting duty by the rescuer can negate new consideration necessary to enforce a separate promise. The main distinction lies in whether the promise is supported by new consideration beyond the rescuer’s preexisting duty, which is generally lacking in this scenario, making the reward unenforceable against Irene under typical contract doctrine.

类似问题

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:

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?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单