Symone Andrew Professor Carr Blaw 280 November 7, 2011

Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino Issue: Did the actions of Gottlieb provide legal value that amounted to consideration to enforce Tropicanas promise? Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise. Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when a promisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerations rule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchange for making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of the same value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for in exchange for making the promise. Application: Gottlieb would argue that there was a consideration with Tropicana because she had given the casino her name, address, and email to be a Diamond Club member. By Gottlieb being a member, she gave the casino something of legal value that she had no prior legal duty to do. She allowed them to track her gambling habits every time she used her card at a slot machine. The casino required this from Gottlieb in exchange for promising her access to promotions that the casino held. Even though this information is not of the same value as what the casino has promised Gottlieb, it is still enforceable because they got what they asked for in exchange for making their promise. Gottlieb went to the casino, waited in line to spin the wheel, and swiped her card, and provided entertainment for the casino guest, all of which she had no legal duty to do. Tropicana would argue that there was no consideration with Gottlieb because she did not provide anything of legal value to the casino in return for their promise. Since Gottlieb did not do anything of legal value in exchange for the promise that Tropicana made there was no consideration and no contract formed. If there was something of legal value exchanged by Gottlieb for the promise made by Tropicana it was not of the same value, which means that it should not be enforceable for them to fulfill the promise made. Conclusion: The motion for summary judgment on the contract claim is denied in favor of Ms. Gottlieb. The elements for consideration was met with the legal value that Gottlieb agreed to that was bargain for by Tropicana in exchange for their promise. PC 1 Case Brief

Issue: Was there a consideration formed to enforce Calabros dads promise? Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise. Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when a promisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerations rule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchange for making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of the same value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for in exchange for making the promise. Application: Calabro would argue that her dad had made a promise to pay for her school expenses to a private school in exchange for her getting 10,000 in financial aid. Calabro would say that she could have gone to the University of Oklahoma with everything paid for but decided not to because of the promise her dad had made. She had given up her legal right to go this school because of the promise her dad has made. The dad would argue that there was no consideration made between them two because there was nothing of legal value given by Calabro that was bargained for by him for the exchange of the promise. The dad would say that he made this promise to her but, it was purely gratuitous because he neither asked for nor received anything in exchange for making the promise. This promise is unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration. Conclusion: Summary Judgment awarded to the dad. The promise is unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration.

PC 2 Case Brief

Issue: Was there consideration to support Zhangs agreement to pay more for the house in question? Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise. Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when a promisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerations rule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchange for making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of the same value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for in exchange for making the promise. Application: For Sorichetti: -Sorichetti believed that under nevada law he could retract an acceptance within three days, so he did not intentionally defraud Mr. Zhang. -Sorichetti agreed to go through with the sale after bargaining with Zhang for more time to spend in his home and more money. -Sorichetti offered up more furniture and went through with the sale which benefited Mr. Zhang -Mr. Zhang agreed to the counter offer brought forth by Mr. Sorichetti. For Zhang: -Sorichetti illegally backed out of their contract using what he thought was a fact about Nevada law to weasel money out of Mr. Zhang. Conclusion: Judgement in favor of Sorichetti because Zhang got what he asked for in exchange for his money. PC 7 Case Brief

Issue: Was there consideration to support Corrines promise to pay the $40,000 to Brian and Ruth? Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise. Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when a promisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerations rule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchange for making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of the same value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for in exchange for making the promise. Application: For Corrine: -Corrines signature on the note that Ruth wrote up would only be consideration if her actions would actually save her sons marriage. (adequacy of consideration) Against Corrine: -Brian had bargained for land by telling his mother that her signature... might save his marriage. -Corrine had legal value to give Ruth and Brian $40,000 from the sale of the land, when she signed the note that Ruth drafted. -Corrines legal value (the selling price of the land) was bargained for in exchange for a promise to her son. Conclusion: Judgement in favor of Brian and Ruth because their was adequate consideration.