This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:


The College failed to operate.
The College failed to operate.
|procedural_history=Salisbury sued Bell in an Iowa trial court claiming that the $15,000 pledge to the College was enforceable.
|procedural_history=Salisbury sued Bell in an Iowa trial court claiming that the $15,000 pledge to the College was enforceable. Bell lost.
|issues=Is a charitable pledge enforceable without a demonstration of detrimental reliance (that is, [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]])?
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/salsbury-v-northwestern-bell-telephone-co
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/salsbury-v-northwestern-bell-telephone-co

Revision as of 13:43, June 30, 2023

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell
Court Iowa Supreme Court
Citation
Date decided September 18, 1974

Facts

Salsbury (plaintiff) was a chairman of a now-defunct Charles City College in Iowa. He started a fundraising campaign that included a pledge drive.

Northwestern Bell ("Bell", defendant) was solicited for a donation. Bell's corporate board approved a pledge to donate to the aforesaid Iowa college.

Bell approved a $15,000 contribution pledge to the College to be paid in 3 installments over 3 years.

The College failed to operate.

Procedural History

Salisbury sued Bell in an Iowa trial court claiming that the $15,000 pledge to the College was enforceable. Bell lost.

Issues

Is a charitable pledge enforceable without a demonstration of detrimental reliance (that is, consideration)?

Case Text Links