Consideration
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the parties exchanged valid consideration or, alternatively, whether consideration can be substituted by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Analysis
R: Consideration is evidenced by (1a) a bargained-for exchange that results in a (1b) change in legal position between the parties. However, consideration can be substituted by (2) promissory estoppel under certain conditions.
1a. Bargained-For
R: A bargained-for exchange occurs when the promise induces the detriment, and the detriment induces the promise. This means that the promisor’s commitment or promise must be made in exchange for something from the promisee, and the promisee’s action or promise must be in response to the promisor’s commitment. In other words, the parties must have intended for their exchange to be the basis of a contractual obligation.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the exchange [was/was not] bargained-for.
1b. Change in Legal Position
R: A change in legal position involves (1) a detriment to the promisee or (2) a benefit to the promisor. A detriment to the promisee is defined as any commitment to do something that the promisee is not legally obligated to do or to refrain from doing something that the promisee is legally entitled to do. Thus, the detriment can be (a) a promise to perform, (b) a promise to refrain from performing something legally permitted, (c) actual performance of an act, or (d) non-performance of an act.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, there [was/was not] a change in legal position between the parties.
2. Promissory Estoppel
R: The doctrine of promissory estoppel may serve as a substitute for consideration where (1) the promisor should have reasonably expected the promise to induce action or forbearance by the promisee, (2) the promise actually induces such action or forbearance, and (3) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel [is/is not] satisfied.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the parties [exchanged/did not exchange] valid consideration. OR Therefore, consideration [may/may not] be substituted by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].