(C) is correct.
Issue: Whether there is valid consideration to support the father’s promise to pay the woman’s debt to the friend if the friend forbears from suing her.
Rule: The forbearance from bringing a valid cause of action for money owed for a reasonable
amount of time is valid consideration. Consideration can be some right, interest, profit or benefit
accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or
undertaken by the other.
Analysis: Here, the friend’s forbearance from bringing a cause of action for money damages
against the woman is consideration for the father’s promise to pay her debt. Thus, the friend will
most likely succeed in an action against the father for the $400.
(C) is correct because the father promising to pay the debt owed if the friend agrees not to sue
is valid, bargained-for consideration.
(A) is incorrect because the amount of money is not relevant in this situation to a
determination of whether or not there is valid consideration to support the agreement.
(B) is incorrect because there is indeed consideration here since the woman is forbearing her
right to sue. Be careful of questions that invoke “moral” obligations. Contract law is not
concerned with moral obligations and takes no position on what is moral; thus such answers will
almost never be correct.
(D) is incorrect because detrimental reliance is used as a theory to enforce promises only when
consideration is absent. Since there is consideration here, the promise is enforceable without
resorting to detrimental reliance.