Contracts
Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo, 405 Mass. 365, 540 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1989)
Study notes for Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
An oral charitable pledge is unenforceable unless there is consideration or proven definite and substantial reliance.
This case emphasizes the importance of consideration in contract law, highlighting that mere verbal pledges, especially in charitable contexts, may lack the enforceability that written agreements possess. Professor may also underscore the concept of reliance, stressing that without demonstrable and substantial reliance on a promise, a court is less likely to enforce it even in charitable pledges. The ruling reflects the courts' reluctance to change long-standing principles regarding enforceability of non-binding commitments.
C.R.E. Out: No Consideration, No Reliance, No Enforceability.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Charitable Contributions v. Estate of Dunn | In Dunn, the court found evidence of reliance by the charity which led to enforcement of the pledge. |
| Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(2) | This section provides guidance on enforceability of charitable subscriptions but requires evidence of reliance, unlike the pledge in this case. |
Enforcing oral pledges without consideration could promote charitable giving and strengthen community support.
Without a requirement for consideration or reliance, such a rule could lead to detrimental reliance by charities without guarantee of funding.
This case typically appears on exams in the context of charitable pledges and the enforceability of oral promises, specifically examining the requirements of consideration and reliance.