Court Opinion

ID: 9548192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:59:08.568354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:36.179451
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: It seems to me this case presents a simple unilateral contract which is in writing. It is signed only by the plaintiff, witnessed, and acknowledged before a Notary Public. It recites that the plaintiff “for the sole consideration of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and no/100 Dollars ($2,-500.00) to the undersigned in hand paid, receipt whereof is. hereby acknowledged,” (Emphasis added) releases the defendant of all claims growing out of personal injuries and property damage as a consequence of a certain accident.
It was stipulated at the pretrial conference the plaintiff did not receive the $2,500 recited as consideration at the time she signed the release and gave it to the insurance adjuster. In other words, the sole consideration recited in this unilateral contract was not in fact paid to the plaintiff when she signed the contract — the recital was false. It should be noted that this written contract was prepared by the adjuster for the insurance company.
In my opinion, it is simple hornbook law that a unilateral contract under these circumstances fails for want of consideration. Where the consideration in a unilateral contract fails, the contract is not binding and cannot be enforced.
It is recognized in this jurisdiction that where a written contract recites consideration, parol evidence is admissible to show that no consideration was actually given. This avoids the binding force of the contract. In the instant case this was accomplished by a stipulation at the pretrial conference.
Even if the release in question be construed as a so-called bilateral contract, a point which I do not concede, the legal significance of the written release constitutes no more than an offer on the part of the plaintiff to release the defendant of all claims for the sum of $2,500 (assuming the written terms of the contract can be altered to give the insurance company a reasonable time to pay). This offer can be accepted only by the payment of the $2,500 recited. Rut here again it is simple hornbook law that one *106who undertakes to enter into a bilateral contract by making an offer to another is permitted to withdraw the offer, provided withdrawal is communicated to the other party prior to his acceptance of the offer. In this case counsel for the plaintiff notified the adjuster for the insurance company of the withdrawal of the offer prior to the tender by the Allstate Insurance Company of the $2,500 to the plaintiff.
Therefore, even if the release in question be construed as a so-called bilateral contract, it is unenforceable as a matter of law.
The court holds the written release in the instant case represents a mutual meeting of the minds of the parties resulting in mutual promises, and declares all the elements of a valid contact to exist. It says “we have no doubt either of the parties could have enforced it.” In a suit to recover the recited consideration this will come as a shock to an insurance company when it finds a unilateral contact of this nature, negotiated by an insurance adjuster, is binding upon the home office of the insurance company prior to the payment of the amount of money recited in the release. For a case involving the practice of adjusting claims between an insured and the insurance company, see Grohusky v. Atlas Assurance Co., 195 Kan. 626, 408 P. 2d 697.
It is respectifully submitted the judgment of the lower court should be reversed with directions to grant the plaintiff a new trial.
Fatzer and O’Connor, JJ., join in the foregoing dissenting opinion.