Opinion ID: 772562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absence of Consideration

Text: 44 VKK asserts, finally, that the Release fails for want of consideration. Citing Maynard v. Durham & S. Ry. Co., 365 U.S. 160, 163 (1961), VKK contends that federal law applies, and that under federal law, consideration is required to render a release enforceable. VKK alleges that all it received in return for the Release was permission to sell the Patriots, a right the NFL owners had already granted by approving the sale. In reply, the defendants argue (1) that under New York law, which governs because the Release contains a New York choice of law clause, a written release is valid even in the absence of consideration; and (2) that even if federal law applies, there was adequate consideration for the Release because VKK was allowed to sell the Patriots and received substantial consideration for doing so. The defendants do not dispute that consideration is required under federal law. 45 We agree with the district court that we need not resolve the question of which law is applicable. If New York law applies, the release is valid under N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law §15 303, which provides that [a] written instrument which purports to be a total or partial release of all claims... shall not be invalid because of the absence of consideration or of a seal. And under federal law, as the district court observed, the plaintiffs received valuable consideration because, [i]n exchange for executing the Release, [VKK] received the NFL's consent to transfer ownership of the Patriots. VKK, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 208; see also Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1261 (4th Cir. 1991) (consent to franchise transfer was adequate consideration for release). VKK's argument that the sale had already been approved by the NFL and that the Release is not binding because of the lack of consideration given in return therefore fails.