Trisko purchased a loveseat from the Vignola Furniture Company. The Loveseat arr

Question

Trisko purchased a loveseat from the Vignola Furniture Company. The Loveseat arrived at Trisko’s home in a damaged condition. Vignola agreed to repa9r the loveseat if Trisko agreed not to sue. Trisko agreed but then later brought suit. Vignola argued that Trisko could not bring suit because he had promised not to sue them in exchange for the repair of the loveseat. Trisko argued that Vignola had a preexisting duty to deliver an undamaged loveseat. This preexisting duty could not therefore be consideration in a new agreement. Was Trisko correct? Explain. Trisko v Vignola Furniture Company, 299 N. E.2d 421 (IL)

Explanation / Answer

Trisko's arguement's premise is that Vignola had a preexisting duty to deliver an undamaged loveseat. The preexisting duty is a promise to do something that one is already obligated to do by law or by some other promise or agreement cannot be made consideration in a new contract.

When the loveseat arrived in damaged condition, Vignola agreed to repair the loveseat if Trisko did not sue. Trisko initially agreed, then later brought suit. I think Trisko was correct as Vihnola had a preexisting duty to deliver the promised loveseat undamaged, and since he didn't it could not be consideration in a new agreement.

Thus preexisting duty could not therefore be consideration in a new agreement.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.