Question

Arnold runs a plumbing company. He and Lucy agree on a price for Arnold to install the plumbing in a new guest house that Lucy is building in her backyard.

As he's working the job, Arnold discovers that he didn't include a sufficient charge for labor in his original price. He tells Lucy that unless he receives an additional $2,500, he can't complete the job. Lucy agrees to pay.

Arnold finishes the plumbing work and submits his bill to Lucy. Lucy pays the amount due under the original contract but refuses to pay the additional $2,500. Arnold sues for breach of contract, claiming that Lucy's failure to pay the $2,500 breached the second contract they entered into.

Which of the following is the most likely result of their dispute?

1.	Lucy is going to have to pay, but only one half of what Arnold is asking. This is due to the calculations involved in the contract adjustment process of equity.
	2.	Lucy is going to have to pay. This is a typical bilateral contract and she got the benefit of the bargain. It would be inequitable for her to accept the benefit without having to pay for it.
	3.	Lucy won't be required to pay. Arnold relied on past consideration when he bargained for the $2,500 contract. Past consideration is no consideration.
	4.	Lucy won't be required to pay. Arnold has a preexisting duty to complete the plumbing work under the original contract, so his promise to perform in return for her promise to pay $2,500 is without consideration.

Answer 1

Answer: Lucy is going to have to pay. This is a typical bilateral contract and she got the benefit of the bargain. It would be inequitable for her to accept the benefit without having to pay for it.

Rationale: According to 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code, any modification or alteration made to the contract doesn't require consideration and since Lucy didn't object to the modification, the contract is valid. Hence, Lucy has to pay the additional $2500.

Option 1 is not true as the UCC doesn't mention any such modifications required for the contract to only pay half of the agreed amount.

Options 3 and 4 are not true as they don't consider the modification made to the existing contract which was not objected by Lucy. Lucy would not have to pay only if the existing contract mentioned that no such modifications can be made or if the contract doesn't meet the requirements mentioned in 2-201 of the UCC.