RE: Bob Vs. Uncle Defenses For Uncle
To: Professor Kandil
From: Brittany Tucci
RE: Bob v. Uncle- Defenses for Uncle
Date: April 29, 2015
Question Presented
What defenses may Uncle assert and with what chances of winning?
Short Answer
Uncle can assert defenses such as: (1) No consideration was present; (2) a conditional gift was intended; and (3) intent.
Statement of Facts
Bob was working as a bartender when he was accepted into a two year program at NYU. Bob’s Uncle stated that if Bob survived his first year of grad school he would pay his tuition for his second year. Bob replied “you’re on Uncle. I will pay you $50 if you put that in writing.” Uncle put his promise in writing and signed it. Uncle then received a painting from Bobs home. Prior to his first semester Bob quit …show more content…
his bartending job to focus on his studies. In May 2013, after receiving straight A’s, Bob received the bill for his second year’s tuition which was $45,000 dollars. Uncle informed Bob that he has had some financial issues and that he could no longer afford to pay for Bob’s second year at NYU. Bob immediately got his job as a bartender back but he still lost $25,000 dollars between the time he quit and the time he was re-hired.
Discussion
While we know that a court must consider three important questions to determine if there was contract; (1) was there mutual assent?, (2) was there consideration?, and (3) are there defenses?
In the case of Bob v. Uncle there was mutual assent, however there was no consideration and there are defenses available. The following outline the defenses available to Uncle in this case: If Uncle were to assert that there was no consideration present he would have to prove that Bob did not suffer a legal detriment. A legal detriment is when a person gives up something valuable or withholds from doing something they are legally allowed to do. Attending College to broaden your education is not a legal detriment to Bob, he is not giving up something of value and he is not refraining from doing something he is legally allowed to do. For these reasons, using lack of consideration as a defense would give Uncle a chance at winning because without consideration the contract would be unenforceable. Secondly, Uncle was offering a conditional gift meaning that in order for Bob to get the money he would have to meet Uncles condition of surviving his first year of grad school. A gift is typically not enforceable because there is no legal detriment. If Uncle were to use the defense of a conditional gift he would have a strong chance of winning. Lastly, Uncle can use intent as a defense, Uncle stated: “If you survive your first year of grad school, I will pay your tuition for your second year.” By
stating “if” Uncle was intending to demonstrate a condition. More so, intent of the parties is the most important aspect, even more important than words. Therefore, if Uncle used the defense of intent and asserted that he intended by writing and actions that this be a conditional gift he would win his case against Bob.
Conclusion
Uncle can use all three of these defenses to win his case, however the strongest one to use would be intent to form a conditional gift. With this defense Uncle would have to show that by his words and Bob’s lack of legal detriment a conditional gift was formed and no contract was formed.
From: Brittany Tucci
RE: Bob v. Uncle- Defenses for Uncle
Date: April 29, 2015
Question Presented
What defenses may Uncle assert and with what chances of winning?
Short Answer
Uncle can assert defenses such as: (1) No consideration was present; (2) a conditional gift was intended; and (3) intent.
Statement of Facts
Bob was working as a bartender when he was accepted into a two year program at NYU. Bob’s Uncle stated that if Bob survived his first year of grad school he would pay his tuition for his second year. Bob replied “you’re on Uncle. I will pay you $50 if you put that in writing.” Uncle put his promise in writing and signed it. Uncle then received a painting from Bobs home. Prior to his first semester Bob quit …show more content…
his bartending job to focus on his studies. In May 2013, after receiving straight A’s, Bob received the bill for his second year’s tuition which was $45,000 dollars. Uncle informed Bob that he has had some financial issues and that he could no longer afford to pay for Bob’s second year at NYU. Bob immediately got his job as a bartender back but he still lost $25,000 dollars between the time he quit and the time he was re-hired.
Discussion
While we know that a court must consider three important questions to determine if there was contract; (1) was there mutual assent?, (2) was there consideration?, and (3) are there defenses?
In the case of Bob v. Uncle there was mutual assent, however there was no consideration and there are defenses available. The following outline the defenses available to Uncle in this case: If Uncle were to assert that there was no consideration present he would have to prove that Bob did not suffer a legal detriment. A legal detriment is when a person gives up something valuable or withholds from doing something they are legally allowed to do. Attending College to broaden your education is not a legal detriment to Bob, he is not giving up something of value and he is not refraining from doing something he is legally allowed to do. For these reasons, using lack of consideration as a defense would give Uncle a chance at winning because without consideration the contract would be unenforceable. Secondly, Uncle was offering a conditional gift meaning that in order for Bob to get the money he would have to meet Uncles condition of surviving his first year of grad school. A gift is typically not enforceable because there is no legal detriment. If Uncle were to use the defense of a conditional gift he would have a strong chance of winning. Lastly, Uncle can use intent as a defense, Uncle stated: “If you survive your first year of grad school, I will pay your tuition for your second year.” By
stating “if” Uncle was intending to demonstrate a condition. More so, intent of the parties is the most important aspect, even more important than words. Therefore, if Uncle used the defense of intent and asserted that he intended by writing and actions that this be a conditional gift he would win his case against Bob.
Conclusion
Uncle can use all three of these defenses to win his case, however the strongest one to use would be intent to form a conditional gift. With this defense Uncle would have to show that by his words and Bob’s lack of legal detriment a conditional gift was formed and no contract was formed.