Browning v. Johnson case brief summary
70 Wn.2d 145
SYNOPSIS:Appellant seller challenged the order from the Superior Court for King County (Washington), which entered judgment in favor of respondent buyer and enforced a contract canceling the parties' sale contract, finding that it was supported by "adequate" consideration. The seller contended that his promise to pay the buyer in exchange for the buyer's promise to cancel the sale contract was unsupported by consideration.
OVERVIEW: The parties were both doctors and entered into a contract of sale whereby the seller agreed to sell his practice and equipment to the buyer. The seller changed his mind about selling and sought to be released from the contract. The parties then entered into a contract cancelling the sale contract, whereby the seller promised to pay the buyer $ 40,000 if the buyer would give up the contract of sale. The seller later regretted this bargain too and filed an action for declaratory judgment and restitution. The trial court held that the contract canceling the sale contract was supported by "adequate" consideration. On appeal, the court affirmed.
ISSUE:
The court found that the issue was whether there was "sufficient" consideration to support the promise as opposed to whether there was "adequate" consideration.
HOLDING:
The court held that the seller's promise was supported by sufficient consideration and the case did not require the court to consider the relative values of the things exchanged.
ANALYSIS:
The requirement of sufficient consideration for the unilateral contract was met by the detriment incurred by the seller in exchange for the buyer's act of giving up the contract of sale.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order that was in favor of the buyer.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
70 Wn.2d 145
SYNOPSIS:Appellant seller challenged the order from the Superior Court for King County (Washington), which entered judgment in favor of respondent buyer and enforced a contract canceling the parties' sale contract, finding that it was supported by "adequate" consideration. The seller contended that his promise to pay the buyer in exchange for the buyer's promise to cancel the sale contract was unsupported by consideration.
OVERVIEW: The parties were both doctors and entered into a contract of sale whereby the seller agreed to sell his practice and equipment to the buyer. The seller changed his mind about selling and sought to be released from the contract. The parties then entered into a contract cancelling the sale contract, whereby the seller promised to pay the buyer $ 40,000 if the buyer would give up the contract of sale. The seller later regretted this bargain too and filed an action for declaratory judgment and restitution. The trial court held that the contract canceling the sale contract was supported by "adequate" consideration. On appeal, the court affirmed.
ISSUE:
The court found that the issue was whether there was "sufficient" consideration to support the promise as opposed to whether there was "adequate" consideration.
HOLDING:
The court held that the seller's promise was supported by sufficient consideration and the case did not require the court to consider the relative values of the things exchanged.
ANALYSIS:
The requirement of sufficient consideration for the unilateral contract was met by the detriment incurred by the seller in exchange for the buyer's act of giving up the contract of sale.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order that was in favor of the buyer.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment