Langer v. Superior Steel

• Superior Steel Corp. = "Superior" = defendant
• "Langer" = plaintiff = a superintendent at Superior who was about to retire
• Superior sent Langer a letter promising to pay him $100/month for the rest of his life provide that Langer didn't work for a competitor
• After paying Langer for 4 years, Superior notified him that the pension payments would stop

Langer sued Superior in Pennsylvania state court for breach of contract.

Superior won.

Is a contract supported by adequate consideration if the promisee (Langer) refrains from doing something that the promisee otherwise had a right to do?

Superior argued that its letter to Langer was a gratuitous promise.

Yes. A contract is supported by adequate consideration if the promisee refrains from doing something that the promisee otherwise had a right to do.

Furthermore, Langer could prevail under the doctrine of Promissory estoppel.

Reversed

Judge Baldrige: I can often be difficult to tell the difference between a gratuitous promise & an enforceable contract.

• A promisee refrains from doing something that they otherwise had a right to do ==> adequate consideration

A Gratuitous Promise lacks consideration & don't give rise to an enforceable contract.

Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#A._Bargained-For_Exchange