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

Browning v. Johnson: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/unilateral-contract)
No edit summary
 
Line 14: Line 14:
|judgment=Affirmed.
|judgment=Affirmed.
|rule=Courts will generally not question the adequacy of [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]].
|rule=Courts will generally not question the adequacy of [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]].
|comments=*[[Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#B._Mixed_Motives]]
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/browning-v-johnson
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/browning-v-johnson

Latest revision as of 19:16, August 18, 2023

Browning v. Johnson
Court Washington Supreme Court
Citation 422 P.2d 314
Date decided January 5, 1967

Facts

Mr. Browning entered into a sales contract to sell his medical practice to Mr. Johnson. Suddenly, Browning change his mind & asked for contract rescission. Browning offered Johnson $40,000 to rescind the contract.

Several months later, Browning wanted a rescission of the 2nd contract to avoid paying $40,000 to Johnson to rescind the 1st contract.

Procedural History

Browning sued Johnson to rescind the 2 contracts.

Browning lost in the trial court.

Issues

Is an agreement to give up the right to enforce an un-enforceable contract sufficient consideration to support a unilateral contract?

Holding

Yes. Giving up the right to enforce an un-enforceable contract was sufficient consideration to support a unilateral contract.

Judgment

Affirmed.

Rule

Courts will generally not question the adequacy of consideration.

Comments

Case Text Links