American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

trial court found the reduced price was roughly the fair market value of the property
at the time the re-negotiations occurred, and the buyers had already paid $58,000
toward principal on the original contract and the balance of the new contract price
was $62,500. Additionally, we find it significant the jury found Quigley, Sr. was
competent when he entered the 1986 agreement and the trial court found no undue
influence or fraudulent misrepresentation involved in the agreement. These factors
lead us to find this is a situation where it is appropriate to find the modification fair
and equitable and does not require proof of additional consideration.
We affirm the trial court’s refusal to allow the issue of consideration to be
litigated.
______________________
Review Question 3. Quigly illustrates the Restatement’s attitude toward
modifications. What “circumstances not anticipated by the parties” would be covered,
do you think? And assuming that the parties now disagree about whether it is “fair
and equitable,” how would a court decide the issue?
______________________
MILLS v. WYMAN
Supreme Court of Massachusetts
20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825)
This was an action of assumpsit brought to recover a compensation for the
board, nursing, &c., of Levi Wyman, son of the defendant, from the 5th to the 20th of
February, 1821. The plaintiff then lived at Hartford, in Connecticut; the defendant,
at Shrewsbury, in this county. Levi Wyman, at the time when the services were
rendered, was about 25 years of age, and had long ceased to be a member of his
father’s family. He was on his return from a voyage at sea, and being suddenly taken
sick at Hartford, and being poor and in distress, was relieved by the plaintiff in the
manner and to the extent above stated. On the 24th of February, after all the
expenses had been incurred, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, promising
to pay him such expenses. There was no consideration for this promise, except what
grew out of the relation which subsisted between Levi Wyman and the defendant,
and Howe J., before whom the cause was tried in the Court of Common Pleas,
thinking this not sufficient to support the action, directed a nonsuit. To this direction
the plaintiff filed exceptions.
PARKER, C. J.
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 8: SPECIAL ISSUES WITH CONSIDERATION 143