Angel v. Murray: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Supreme Court of Rhode Island | ||
|citation=322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) | |citation=322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) | ||
|date=1974 | |date=July 22, 1974 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
| | |facts=Since 1946, Maher ran garbage hauling service in Newport, Rhode Island. Every 5 years, Maher's contract with Newport was renewed. | ||
For the term 1964 to 1969, Maher was to receive $137,000/year. | |||
<span style="background:yellow">Murray ("Murray") is the director of finance of Newport, RI</span>. The city entered into a contract with James Maher. Maher was to collect and remove all refuse from the city for a set amount of money. | |||
During the execution of the contract for 1967-1968 the city grew much more than expected, and Maher asked the city for $10,000 more to cover his costs. The city paid. The next year, the same thing happened and the city paid $10,000 more to Maher. | |||
|procedural_history=Alfred Angel <span style="background:yellow">("Angel"), a Newport resident, brought suit</span> alleging that Maher had been illegally paid the $20,000. | |||
Trial court found that each $10,000 payment had been paid illegally. Superior court affirmed. | |||
|issues=Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration? | |issues=Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration? | ||
| | |||
Are the additional payments illegal because they haven't been supported by new [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]]? | |||
|holding=The contracts are enforceable. | |holding=The contracts are enforceable. | ||
No. Modern rules of contract modification allow the parties to negotiate additional compensation. Consequently, the additional payments to Maher (garbage collector) were legal. | |||
|judgment=Reversed. | |judgment=Reversed. | ||
|reasons=There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable. | |reasons=There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable. | ||
|rule= | |rule=This case is an exception to the '''pre-existing duty rule'''. | ||
| | |||
| | Section 89(a) of the American Law Institute’s Restatement, Second, Law of Contracts provides the following test for contract modification of services: | ||
| | #Voluntary? | ||
#Prior to full peformance? | |||
#Unexpected circumstances? | |||
#Equitable modification? | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/angel-v-murray | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/angel-v-murray | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| Angel v. Murray | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
|---|---|
| Citation | 322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) |
| Date decided | July 22, 1974 |
Facts
Since 1946, Maher ran garbage hauling service in Newport, Rhode Island. Every 5 years, Maher's contract with Newport was renewed.
For the term 1964 to 1969, Maher was to receive $137,000/year.
Murray ("Murray") is the director of finance of Newport, RI. The city entered into a contract with James Maher. Maher was to collect and remove all refuse from the city for a set amount of money.
During the execution of the contract for 1967-1968 the city grew much more than expected, and Maher asked the city for $10,000 more to cover his costs. The city paid. The next year, the same thing happened and the city paid $10,000 more to Maher.Procedural History
Alfred Angel ("Angel"), a Newport resident, brought suit alleging that Maher had been illegally paid the $20,000.
Trial court found that each $10,000 payment had been paid illegally. Superior court affirmed.Issues
Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration?
Are the additional payments illegal because they haven't been supported by new consideration?Holding
The contracts are enforceable.
No. Modern rules of contract modification allow the parties to negotiate additional compensation. Consequently, the additional payments to Maher (garbage collector) were legal.Judgment
Reversed.
Reasons
There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable.
Rule
This case is an exception to the pre-existing duty rule.
Section 89(a) of the American Law Institute’s Restatement, Second, Law of Contracts provides the following test for contract modification of services:
- Voluntary?
- Prior to full peformance?
- Unexpected circumstances?
- Equitable modification?
