some of some forbearance,loss, forbearance, loss, or responsibility or responsibility thatis that is undertakenor incurredby or incurred theother by the otherparty. party.
Frequent FlyerDepot,Inc. Flyer Depot, Inc. v. Airlines,Inc., Am.Airlines, v. Am. S.W.3d215, 281S.W.3d Inc., 281 215, 224 (Tex.App. - Fort 224(Tex. App. - Fort
Worth2009, Worth 2009,pet. denied). pet.denied). Paying Paying money money surrendering orsurrendering or aa legal ordinarily rightordinarily legalright represents valid represents valid
consideration. consideration. See GasCo. See N. Natural Gas v.Conoco, Co. v. S.W.2d603,607 986 S.W.2d Inc., 986 Conoco,Inc., 603, 607 (Tex. 1998). (Tex.1998).
WhilePLAINTIFFS While PLAINTIFFSgave somethingof gave something value, tthey of value, received n heyreceived othingof nothing of return andwere returnand were promised nothing promised inreturn. nothing in Thepromises return.The madeby promises made byDEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS were wereillusory. An illusory Anillusory promise isnot promise is consideration notconsideration underTexas under law.As Texaslaw. Assuch, theRule such, the Rule 11 Agreement ll Agreement isvoid. is void.
13.Lackof 13. consideration Lack of consideration is thefaceof evidentfrom the is evident thedocument, face of the whichgivesPLAINTIFFS document, which gives PLAINTIFFS
nothing nothing ofvalue of inreturn for value in fortheir agreement their agreement tosettle to claims settleclaims asserted asserted against against DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS.
Thepromises The illusory wereillusory promises were because because theywere they incapable wereincapable ofenforcement of byPLAINTIFFS enforcement by dueto: PLAINTIFFS due to: (a) the (a) failureto the failure to specify dateby specifyaadate whichRUBYPETERSON bywhich wouldbe RUBY PETERSON would movedout be moved of out of
SILVERADO SILVERADOand and (b) thelack (b) the lackof authority of authority DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS had determine hadtotodetermine whether whether
PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS begranted wouldbe would feesby granted fees bythe Court.Notably, the Court. Notably,theagreement the agreementdidnot did promise not promise topay to pay
theirfees; butrather, their fees; but DEFENDANTS rather, DEFENDANTS merely p merely romised promised not to object notto object tto theirfees. o their Without fees. Without aa
promise promise thatPLAINTIFFS' attomeys' that PLAINTIFFS' attorneys' feeswould fees bepaidby would be DEFENDANTS, paid by DEFENDANTS, the question of thequestion of
whether whether PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS were granted ffees were granted eesis solelywithin is solely thediscretion within the oftheCourt. discretion of Notably, the Court. Notably,
promising afterpromising after notto objectto not to object PLAlNTlFFS' toPLAINTIFFS' fees, DEFENDANTS fees,DEFENDANTS didjustthatwhen did Sarah just that when Sarah
Pacheco Pacheco filed objections filedobjections to PLAINTlFFS' to feeapplication. PLAINTIFFS' fee application.
Silverado Appx. 0605 No. 1-15-567-CV 2084 14.A 14. must b A contract must beebased upon aa valid based upon in otherw consideration,inother valid consideration, words,mutuality ords,mutualityofobligation. of obligation.
See Texas Gas Util.Co. SeeTexasGas Barrett, 4460 v. Barrett, Util. Co. v. 409, 412 (Tex.1970);Langley S.W.2d409,412(Tex.1970); 60S.W.2d v.Norris,141 Langleyv. Norris, 141
Tex.405,173S.W.2d Bureau Cotton 454, 458 (1943); Texas Farm Bureau Tex. 405, 173 S.W.2d 454,458(1943);TexasFarm CottonAss'n v.Stovall, Ass'nv. Stovall,1113 13Tex. Tex.
273, 253 S.W. 1101, 1105(1923). 273,253S.W.1101,1105 Consideration (1923). Consideration is aa bargained is bargainedfor exchangeooff promises. for exchange promises.
Roark v. StallworthOil Roark v. Gas,Inc., &Gas, Oil& 813SS.W.2d Inc.,813 .W.2d 492,496 492, Considerationconsists (Tex.1991). Consideration 496(Tex.199l). consists
of benefits anddetriments of to thecontracting and detrimentsto parties. Roark,8813 the contractingparties.Roark, 13S.W.2d S.W.2dat 496. The at 496. The
detriments inducetheparties mustinduce