Rowan, a basketball star, signs a two year contract to play basketball for the B
ID: 444008 • Letter: R
Question
Rowan, a basketball star, signs a two year contract to play basketball for the Bullets for $200,000 per game. Right before a "big game," Rowan goes to the owner of the team and says that he will not play at all unless the owner pays him and additional $10,000 per game. The owner, being desperate, reluctantly agrees and promises to pay Rowan more. Now that the season is over, Rowan demands his additional compensation of $10,000 per game; but the owner of the Bullets refuses to pay. Rowan sues the owner for breach of contract. The most likely result of the lawsuit is that:
Rowan wins since this is a valid modification of a pre-existing earlier contract.
Owner wins since a contract can never be modified whatsoever, even if the parties agree to the modification.
Rowan wins since this is a valid modification of a contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, which needs no new consideration to be enforceable.
Owner wins since Rowan was under a prior duty to play basketball, so the owner's new promise to pay more money for the same act was not detriment on Rowan's part, and consequently was not supported by consideration on Rowan's part, and thus the owner's promise is not enforceable.
a.Rowan wins since this is a valid modification of a pre-existing earlier contract.
b.Owner wins since a contract can never be modified whatsoever, even if the parties agree to the modification.
c.Rowan wins since this is a valid modification of a contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, which needs no new consideration to be enforceable.
d.Owner wins since Rowan was under a prior duty to play basketball, so the owner's new promise to pay more money for the same act was not detriment on Rowan's part, and consequently was not supported by consideration on Rowan's part, and thus the owner's promise is not enforceable.
Explanation / Answer
Owner wins since Rowan was under a prior duty to play basketball, so the owner's new promise to pay more money for the same act was not detriment on Rowan's part, and consequently was not supported by consideration on Rowan's part, and thus the owner's promise is not enforceable.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.