--- title: "Angel v. Murray" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/angel-v-murray --- # Angel v. Murray Angel v. Murray is a landmark case that relaxed the pre-existing duty rule by holding that a contract modification may be enforceable without new consideration when it is voluntarily made in light of unanticipated changed circumstances and is fair and equitable. The case adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 89 and represented a significant modernization of the consideration doctrine in the context of contract modification. ## Citation 113 R.I. 482, 322 A.2d 630 (1974) ## Year 1974 ## Court Supreme Court of Rhode Island ## Facts James Maher had a contract with the City of Newport to collect refuse. Over the course of the contract, the number of dwelling units in Newport increased substantially and unexpectedly, from 20,000 to approximately 25,000 units. Maher voluntarily approached the city council and requested additional compensation of $10,000 per year to account for the increased workload. The city council approved the increase without coercion. Several taxpayers, including Angel, challenged the modification as an unauthorized gift of public funds unsupported by consideration. ## Procedural History Taxpayers brought suit to recover the additional payments made to Maher, arguing the modifications were invalid for lack of consideration. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, holding the modifications unenforceable under the pre-existing duty rule. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reversed. ## Issue Whether a modification to a contract that increases compensation for performance of an existing obligation is enforceable when the modification was voluntarily agreed to in light of unanticipated circumstances, even though the performing party provided no new or additional consideration beyond the pre-existing duty. ## Holding The court held that the contract modification was enforceable despite the absence of additional consideration, because it was voluntarily made in response to unanticipated circumstances (the unexpected increase in dwelling units) and was fair and equitable. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 89 approach, which recognizes that modifications are binding when made in good faith in response to changed circumstances not anticipated at the time of the original agreement. ## Reasoning Justice Roberts, writing for the court, recognized that the strict pre-existing duty rule, while designed to prevent coerced modifications, can produce unjust results when applied to voluntary, good-faith modifications prompted by genuinely changed circumstances. The court found that the increase from 20,000 to 25,000 units was not anticipated at the time of the original contract, that the additional $10,000 was fair and reasonable compensation for the increased workload, and that the modification was not procured through coercion or duress. The court distinguished Alaska Packers, where the modification was coerced, from the present case, where Maher made a reasonable request and the city voluntarily agreed. The court adopted Restatement Section 89, which provides that a modification is binding if it is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties. ## Impact Angel v. Murray became a leading case for the modern relaxation of the pre-existing duty rule and the adoption of Restatement Section 89 as a basis for enforcing good-faith contract modifications. The case influenced numerous jurisdictions to move away from the strict pre-existing duty rule in favor of a more flexible approach that considers the voluntariness of the modification, the fairness of the terms, and whether the circumstances were genuinely unanticipated. It is regularly cited alongside Alaska Packers to illustrate the evolution of the consideration doctrine. ## Key Quotes - The modern trend appears to be approaching a rule that a modification of an executory contract, if not obtained through duress, is enforceable even in the absence of new consideration. - Where an unexpected or unanticipated difficulty arises during the performance of a contract, a party may agree to pay additional compensation without being guilty of a breach of the pre-existing duty rule. - The key is whether the modification was voluntary and not the result of coercion or duress. ## Related Cases - alaska-packers-association-v-domenico - hamer-v-sidway - mills-v-wyman - webb-v-mcgowin ## Exam Relevance Angel v. Murray is tested alongside Alaska Packers as the modern counterpoint to the pre-existing duty rule. Exam questions present fact patterns involving contract modifications and ask students to determine whether the modification is enforceable under the traditional rule, the Restatement Section 89 approach, or UCC 2-209. Key factors to analyze include whether the changed circumstances were unanticipated, whether the modification was voluntary, and whether the terms are fair and equitable. ## Study Tips - Compare directly with Alaska Packers: the key distinction is that Alaska Packers involved coercion (workers threatening to stop in remote Alaska) while Angel involved a voluntary, good-faith request in response to genuinely changed circumstances. - Know the three requirements under Restatement Section 89: (1) the modification must be fair and equitable, (2) it must be in view of circumstances not anticipated at the time of contracting, and (3) the modification must be voluntary. - Distinguish from UCC Section 2-209, which goes further by eliminating the consideration requirement entirely for modifications of contracts for the sale of goods, requiring only good faith. - Use the Angel v. Murray framework as a checklist on exams: Was the modification voluntary? Were the circumstances unanticipated? Is the modification fair and equitable? If all three are yes, the modification may be enforceable despite the pre-existing duty rule. ## Doctrine Established Fair and Equitable Modification Exception to Pre-Existing Duty Rule --- Source: [Angel v. Murray — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/angel-v-murray)