Case Problem Analysis: Preexisting Duty

Randy hired Lamar to drive his car in a race. Manu, a friend of Lamar, promised to pay Lamar $$3,000$ if he won the race. Lamar won the race, but Manu refused to pay the $$3,000.$ Manu contended that no legally binding contract had been formed because he had received no consideration from Lamar for his promise to pay the $$3,000.$ Lamar sued Manu for breach of contract, arguing that winning the race was the consideration given in exchange for Manu$$s promise to pay the $$3,000.$ What rule of law supports Manu$$s claim?

Assessment content

Apply It: Preexisting Duty

Assessment details

Total points: $--/5$

Attempts left: $2$

Assessment question

Identifying the Facts and Issues

Of the elements of a contract: mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality, the

select answer

element is at issue here.

select answer

was the consideration exchanged in the contract.

Assessment question

Lamar

select answer

have a duty to win the race because

select answer

hired Lamar to drive his car in the race.

Assessment question

Lamar

select answer

support a second contract by doing something he was already obligated to do on the first contract because contract law

select answer

allow it$.$

Assessment question

In the preexisting duty rule, a person already bound by a contract to perform a certain duty

select answer

have that duty act as consideration for a second contract. In this case, Lamar

select answer

recover from Manu.

Assessment question

What If the Facts Were Different?

If Lamar hadn't entered into the first contract with Randy, he

select answer

recover because his duty to try and win the race

select answer

sufficient consideration to support the bargain.