Opinion ID: 788626
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: To constitute consideration, a performance or a return promise must be bargained for.

Text: 42 (2) A performance or return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise. 43 (3) The performance may consist of 44
45
46
47 (4) The performance or return promise may be given to the promisor or to some other person. It may be given by the promisee or by some other person. 48 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 71. 49 Many courts, this Court included, have recognized the proposition that a general contractor can become liable directly to a supplier of its subcontractor in circumstances where the oral representation or agreement works to the detriment of the supplier. For example, in American Cas. Co. of Reading Pa. v. Southern Materials Co., 261 F.2d 197, 198-99 (4th Cir.1958), the subcontractor fell delinquent in payments to the materialman, and the materialman notified the contractor of his plans to notify the bonding company and the public works officer. The contractor requested that the materialman forego giving such notice, continue to perform, and verbally agreed to pay the materialman for the concrete previously delivered. See id. The materialman performed under this new agreement and the district court ultimately found the general contractor liable. See id. 50 However, in every case CTI/DC cites for this proposition, the court in question made a specific finding that consideration had passed from the materialman to the general contractor for the promise to cover the subcontractor's debt. 5 For example, in American Casualty the Court explicitly found that the materialman furnished consideration for the contractor's promise to pay the subcontractor's debt 51 when the materialman relinquished its right to give written notice and continued to deliver concrete to the site after the agreement. Id. 52 By contrast, CTI/DC makes no allegation that any consideration passed to HRGM for the promise to cover the debts of the subcontractor. CTI/DC last furnished materials/supplies to HRGM on or about October 1, 2002. The meeting at which CTI/DC alleges HRGM made the promise to pay took place on or about December 3, 2002. There is no allegation of continued performance (or even a promise of continued performance) by CTI/DC after the alleged promise because CTI/DC had completed its obligations in October of that year. Nor is there any allegation that CTI/DC forewent the exercise of any rights it held as a result of the alleged promise. In short, the amended complaint is devoid of any allegation that any acceptable form of consideration passed from CTI/DC to HRGM for the promise to cover Selby's debt. 53 As such, the district court correctly ruled that CTI/DC's argument has no basis in the factual allegations made in the amended complaint, and thus properly dismissed the claim for failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted.