Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1906-03-19

- -
effect that he had received nothing
for the promise. and thersDsN was
not. bound 10 II. Our presents law,
however. has almost wholly done
away with this fiction. Now the con.
sideration Of y promise may. be- In.
quired into. whether II be under seal
or not.
II must not be thought that In or.
der to support y promise the other
party must necessarily give something
or promise to give something. II no
IL 10 lose or suffer something or prom
ises to give up something. the consid.
GRAFTON IL u valid one. II I promise to
give you . hundred dollars II you
stop smoking for six months. and, de.
pending upon my promise. you do stop
smoking for six months. I am bound
to pay the one hundred dollars. In
this case you have not giv1n anything
or promised 10 give anything to me.
but YOU have suffered q loss. or have
given up something, depending upon
the promise. II has always been held
that q promise IL a good consideration
for q promise. that H.. my promise to
do something for you. II given In tx.
change for q promise by you to do
something for me. MAKES . valid con.
tract. The most common example OF
this sort OF a contract IL the marriage
contract. under which each party
promises. and the promise Of each Is
. consideration for the promise Of
the other.
Sometimes, It u not an easy mat
ter to determine whether the contract
has q consideration or not. It should
be understood that where one 10 al.
ready bound In the law to do a thing,
hts promise to do that thing IL not q
sufficient consideration to support a
contract.
Suppose, for instance, that you owe
me q hundred dollars and the debt Is
overdue. say to you. III you will
pay me the hundred dollars you owe
me, will give you the rent Of q house
free for q MONTH" Depending on my
promise. you pay me the hundred
dollars. and refuse to give you the
house. Am I Justified in law In refus
Ink? What II the consideration FOL
my promise to give you the house
free for = month? It Is the doing by
Won Of something that you are already
bound to do; therefore the law says
there Is no legal consideration. and Il
will not compel me to let you have
the house.
Suppose that you have minor chill,
dren and You do not support them. as
In law you are bound to do, giving
them food, shelter. medicine, and
education such Is Is reasonable COZ
sidering your abilities, etc. say to
yon, III you will treat your children
for a year as you are bound In the
law to treat them, ] will give you Ave
hundred dollars" You accept the ar
rangement and provide your children
with clothing medicines education, etc.
as In law you are bound to do, and
then ask me for the five hundred dol
lars. and ! refuse to give It to you
You bring suit against re. Ny, law
YER IN court pleads that you were n
law already bound to do the thing;
which you promised to do. The cour'
agrees with him, and the case Is dis
missed.
You start to build a house for me
under a contract TO complete It for .
certain amount. Before you finish It
you find you are going to lose money
You say, Il will not finish 1t unless
You pay me $500 more" | make q
promise to do SO and you finish the
house. The question arises as t.
whether ! am bound to pay the extra
price that J have promised. In good
morals may be bound to; In law, ]
am not.