Contract Between Swimu And The Abbots

1750 Words7 Pages
Issue 1: Whether the additional terms of paying separately to SWIMU for the materials to build the pool are a part of the contract between SWIMU and the Abbots. Issue 2: Whether a modification of the contract between SWIMU and the Abbots, in the form of additional payments to finish building of the pool, is supported by the consideration. Rule: To determine whether the additional terms become a part of the contract there must be a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time to operate as an acceptance even if it contains terms additional to or different from the offer, unless, the acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional terms or different…show more content…
A contract is an exchange of promises or a promise in exchange for performance, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, per Restatement 2nd of Contracts §1. For the contract to be valid there has to be mutual assent, parties mutually agree upon the same specific thing. Per Restatement 2nd of Contracts §54, there are two types of contracts: unilateral, where acceptance is by performance, and bilateral, where there is an exchange of mutual promises and both of the parties have the rights and duties. There must be consideration for a contract to be enforced by the court. According to the Restatement 2nd of Contracts §71, to constitute consideration, a performance or a return promise must be bargained for. Furthermore, for there to be consideration, there must be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee (see Hamer v. Sidway). According to Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico, the pre-existing duty rules states that an agreement to a contract is not supported by the consideration if one of the parties to the agreement does or promises to do something that he is legally obligated to do or refrains or promises to refrain from doing something he is not legally privileged to do. However, Angel v. Murray set an exception to that rule
    Open Document