Philosophy 2080 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Parol Evidence Rule, Dalhousie University, Contract
6 Feb 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
No letter ever followed and boutilier fell on hard economic times and could not pay. He acknowledged that he still intended to pay, and would do so when he could afford to. He died, and dalhousie claimed against his estate for the money. Dalhousie was successful at trial which was overturned on appeal. Crocket, writing for the court, decides that this gratuitous promise did not receive any consideration, and therefore that it is not a binding agreement. Boutilier did not promise to pay the money for any specific reason; he was not getting a specific benefit out of it. Unless the promisor gets some specific benefit from a gratuitous promise, then there is no consideration. If he had donated money specifically for the construction of a certain new building this could be consideration; but no such purpose is found in this case and therefore there is no binding agreement.
