Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Obligations Enforceable Without A Bargained For Exchange
7 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Obligations Enforceable Without A Bargained For ExchangeQuestion 1 of 7

At a fundraising dinner, Elena signs and delivers a written pledge card promising to give the university $250,000. The university does not change its position in reliance on the pledge. Elena later refuses to pay, asserting that her pledge was a gratuitous promise with no consideration.

Can the university enforce Elena's pledge?

Yes, because Elena's signed pledge is a charitable subscription that need not be supported by reliance or bargained-for consideration.
Yes, because the university accepted Elena's pledge when she signed and delivered the pledge card.
No, because a promise to make a gift is unenforceable without consideration or detrimental reliance.
No, because the university did not change its position in reliance on Elena's pledge.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Obligations Enforceable Without A Bargained For Exchange

Practice Obligations Enforceable Without A Bargained For Exchange in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Obligations Enforceable Without A Bargained For Exchange, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

At a fundraising dinner, Elena signs and delivers a written pledge card promising to give the university $250,000. The university does not change its position in reliance on the pledge. Elena later refuses to pay, asserting that her pledge was a gratuitous promise with no consideration.

Can the university enforce Elena's pledge?

  1. Yes, because Elena's signed pledge is a charitable subscription that need not be supported by reliance or bargained-for consideration. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the university accepted Elena's pledge when she signed and delivered the pledge card.
  3. No, because a promise to make a gift is unenforceable without consideration or detrimental reliance.
  4. No, because the university did not change its position in reliance on Elena's pledge.
Explanation: A charitable subscription is binding under promissory estoppel without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance. Elena's signed pledge card is a charitable subscription, so the university need not show reliance or a bargained-for exchange. A donative promise is ordinarily unenforceable without consideration or reliance, but the charitable-subscription rule is a recognized exception. Acceptance of the pledge is not what makes it enforceable, and reliance is not required.

Question 2

On March 1, Farmer signs and delivers to Developer a writing stating: "In consideration of $1.00 paid by Developer, I agree to keep my offer to sell Blackacre to Developer for $500,000 open until June 1." Developer never pays the $1.00. On April 1, Farmer revokes. Developer tenders $500,000 on April 15.

Can Developer enforce Farmer's promise to keep the offer open?

  1. Yes, because Farmer's signed writing recited consideration for the option, even though Developer never paid it. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because Developer's receipt of the signed writing was itself consideration for Farmer's promise.
  3. No, because an option contract requires actual consideration, and Developer paid none.
  4. No, because an option in a land-sale contract must be supported by separate bargained-for consideration.
Explanation: A signed written offer that recites purported consideration for making the offer is binding as an option contract if it proposes fair terms for a reasonable time. Actual payment of the recited $1.00 is not required under this rule. Developer's receipt of the writing is not consideration, and an option for land does not require a separate bargained-for exchange when the writing recites consideration.

Question 3

Nine years ago, Reed borrowed $40,000 from Lane under a signed promissory note due one year later. The applicable limitations period is four years, and Lane never sued. Last month, Reed sent Lane a signed letter stating: "I acknowledge the old debt and promise to pay the remaining balance over the next year." Reed later refuses to pay.

Which statement is correct?

  1. Reed's promise is unenforceable because the statute of limitations extinguishes the debt, and a debtor cannot revive it after the period has run.
  2. Reed's promise is unenforceable because it is based solely on past consideration.
  3. Reed's promise is enforceable because a signed promise to pay an old debt barred only by the statute of limitations is binding without new consideration. (correct answer)
  4. Reed's promise is enforceable only if the amount of the remaining balance was undisputed.
Explanation: A promise to pay an antecedent debt is binding if the debt would be enforceable except for the running of the statute of limitations. Reed's signed letter acknowledging the debt and promising to pay the balance is such a new promise, so the limitations bar no longer prevents enforcement. The statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt, and the past-consideration objection is overcome by this moral-obligation exception.

Question 4

Marta promises her nephew Paul that if he spends the summer volunteering at a legal aid clinic, she will pay him $5,000. Paul had already signed a nonbinding letter of intent to volunteer at the clinic before he knew of Marta's promise. He did not learn of the promise until after the summer ended. Marta then refuses to pay.

Can Paul enforce Marta's promise?

  1. Yes, because Paul's volunteer work was a substantial detriment incurred in reliance on Marta's promise.
  2. Yes, because the clinic, an intended third-party beneficiary, relied on the promised payment.
  3. No, because a promise to pay for services must be in writing to be enforceable.
  4. No, because Paul neither knew of the promise nor acted in response to it; there was no acceptance or reliance. (correct answer)
Explanation: Paul did not know of Marta's promise during the summer, so his volunteer work was not given in exchange for the promise and was not induced by it. There is therefore no bargained-for exchange, no acceptance by performance, and no detrimental reliance. The clinic was not an intended beneficiary of a promise to pay Paul, and no writing requirement applies to this service promise.

Question 5

Ava promises to give Ben $50,000 to help him open a coffee shop. In reliance, Ben quits his job, spends $12,000 on equipment, and signs a lease. Ava then refuses to pay, and Ben sues, seeking to enforce the promise.

Which statement best describes Ben's likely recovery?

  1. Ben will recover the full $50,000 because promissory estoppel makes the promise enforceable on the same terms as a contract.
  2. Ben will recover his proven out-of-pocket losses and other reliance damages, but the court may limit the remedy rather than award the full promised gift. (correct answer)
  3. Ben will recover nothing because a promise to make a gift cannot create a contract without consideration.
  4. Ben will recover only the value of the lease because quitting a job is not a quantifiable reliance loss.
Explanation: Under promissory estoppel, a promise that induces reasonable reliance may be binding, but the remedy may be limited as justice requires. When a promise resembles a gift and the reliance is partial, courts generally award reliance damages rather than automatically enforcing the full promised amount. The promise is not unenforceable for lack of consideration, but Ben is not automatically entitled to the entire $50,000 or to speculative profits.

Question 6

On June 1, Steel Corp., a merchant, faxes Builder a signed proposal: "We offer to sell you 2,000 tons of rebar at $600 per ton. This offer will be held open for six months." Builder gives Steel Corp. no consideration for the promise to hold the offer open. On August 1, Steel Corp. telephones Builder and revokes. Builder faxes an acceptance on August 5.

Under UCC Article 2, is there a contract?

  1. Yes, because a merchant's signed firm offer is irrevocable for the full six-month period stated, despite the lack of consideration.
  2. Yes, because the June 1 offer was irrevocable for three months, and Steel Corp.'s August 1 revocation was ineffective before that period expired. (correct answer)
  3. No, because a promise to hold an offer open for more than three months is invalid in its entirety.
  4. No, because an offer cannot be irrevocable unless the offeree gave consideration for the option.
Explanation: Under UCC firm-offer rules, a merchant's signed written offer that gives assurance it will be held open is irrevocable without consideration, but in no event for more than three months. The six-month term is therefore limited to three months. Steel Corp. attempted to revoke on August 1, before the three-month period expired, so the revocation was ineffective and Builder's August 5 acceptance formed a contract.

Question 7

Bakery agreed in writing to sell Catering Co. 1,000 cakes for $20,000. In May, before delivery, the market price of flour rises sharply. Bakery tells Catering that it cannot perform at the old price unless the price is increased to $24,000. Catering, wanting to ensure a steady supply, agrees in writing. After delivery, Catering pays only $20,000, claiming the modification lacked consideration.

Which statement is correct under the UCC?

  1. The modification is unenforceable because Bakery was already obligated to deliver the cakes at $20,000, so its promise to perform was not new consideration.
  2. The modification is enforceable because no consideration is needed for a good-faith modification of a UCC sales contract. (correct answer)
  3. The modification is unenforceable because Catering's agreement was obtained by economic duress.
  4. The modification is enforceable only if Bakery also signed a writing reciting new consideration for the price increase.
Explanation: Under the UCC, an agreement modifying a contract for the sale of goods needs no consideration, but it must satisfy the obligation of good faith. Bakery's request was based on a sharp market-price increase, and Catering agreed in a signed writing. The common-law preexisting-duty rule does not govern UCC modifications, and no recited consideration is required.