A homeowner and a painter agree that the painter will paint the homeowner’s house in exchange for $5,000. Before the job begins, the homeowner contacts the painter and asks if they will add a deck staining service for the same price, and the painter agrees. After the painter completes both tasks, the homeowner refuses to pay, arguing there was no consideration for the agreement to add deck staining. Is the homeowner correct?
No, because the homeowner's request to add services for the same price amounts to a unilateral contract.
Yes, because new terms introduced after a contract is signed are unenforceable without a written agreement.
Yes, because modifying an existing contract does not require new consideration.
No, because the painter's agreement to add an additional service constitutes consideration.
No, the homeowner is not correct. A valid contract requires consideration, which is a bargained-for exchange. In this case, the painter's agreement to provide an additional service (deck staining) constitutes new consideration for the modified agreement. The homeowner essentially bargained for more services, and the painter agreed to provide those additional services, creating a valid modification supported by consideration. The homeowner's argument fails because the painter incurred an additional obligation in response to the homeowner's request.
Incorrect answers might suggest that a modification to an existing contract never requires consideration or that consideration can be implied in every situation, but the law typically requires a clear bargained-for exchange or an enforceable exception (such as reliance).
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is consideration in contract law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a contract modification be made without new consideration?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between a unilateral and a bilateral contract?