Other
123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997)
Study notes for Harrington v. Taylor: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A promise based on past consideration and moral obligation is not enforceable in contract law.
In Harrington v. Taylor, the court addresses the critical issue of enforceability in contracts when past consideration and moral obligation come into play. Professors often emphasize that past consideration, or anything given or done before a promise or contract is formed, cannot serve as valid consideration for a subsequent promise. This case serves as a strong reminder to law students of the necessity for mutual exchange in contractual agreements. The court's differentiation between voluntary moral duty and legal enforceability highlights a key principle in contract law that can have far-reaching implications in both personal and business contexts.
Additionally, the ruling warns against the dangers of relying on informal promises grounded in moral obligations, which the court has clarified do not meet the legal framework required for a binding contract. A professor may also discuss the implications of this ruling on future dealings and the importance of formalizing financial arrangements to avoid disputes and litigation.
Past Consideration Prohibits Payment
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Eastwood v. Kenyon | In Eastwood, the court found that past debts can lead to enforceability if accompanied by a fresh promise supported by new consideration. |
| Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co. | In Feinberg, the court recognized that a promise made in recognition of past services can be enforceable if it is implied by a new agreement. |
| Mills v. Wyman | In Mills, the court ruled that moral obligations are not sufficient to support a promise unless accompanied by valid consideration. |
Requiring valid consideration encourages formal contracts, reducing ambiguity in personal and business transactions.
Upholding moral obligations may promote trust and social responsibility among individuals in informal agreements.
This case is often posed in exams as an illustration of the principles of consideration, particularly in the context of past promises. Students may be asked to analyze how moral obligation affects enforceability in contract law or to distinguish between valid and invalid consideration.