Main Content
Angel v. Murray
As you read this case, again identify the promise at issue. Can you explain why it is not supported by consideration?
The court thinks that the promise should nevertheless be enforceable, and it adopts and applies an exception to the pre-existing legal duty rule. Do you think this exception makes sense? How would you apply it in the Alaska Packers' case?
Note that both the common law and the UCC have adopted exceptions in these kinds of circumstances, and the court here discusses both of them. The UCC provision and the Restatement's version of the exception are included after the case. They are somewhat different. Is one rule better than the other? Does it make sense to have a different rule for goods contracts?
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.