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:单项选择题

类似问题

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