Question

a. James works for the county fire department and hasn't had a raise in three years. When he shows up at the mayor's house to put out a fire, he sees the mayor standing outside. James tells the mayor that he will put out the fire only if the mayor agrees to give him a raise. The mayor agrees. Is the mayor bound to give James a raise after he put out the fire? Explain.

b. Roberto has an art collection valued at $1,000,000. He has promised to donate his collection to a local arts foundation if that foundation satisfactorily obtains donations of equal value from other sources. The foundation manages to obtain matching donations. However, when Roberto died, his will stated that he had left his collection to his nephew, Michael. If the foundation sues, discuss whether the foundation would be awarded the art collection?

Please solve both the parts

Answer 1

A. No the mayor is not bound to give James a raise.

This is because any contract, be it verbal or written, is null and void if made under duress. The situation here is one of duress only. The mayor's house was under fire and he needed the fire to be extinguished as soon as possible. James had immense leverage in that situation since the mayor was under duress. Effectively the mayor was forced in agreeing to give a raise. At that moment, any promise made by the mayor is null and void. Hence, mayor is not bound to give James a raise later on.

B. This case is same as something called Proprietary estoppel.

This happens when a promise was made before death, but it was not granted in the will and now there is a contradiction. Roberto promised to the arts foundation to donate if they were able to raise a million. They did so, but Roberto died and the collection is going to his nephew.

In all such cases, there are 3 requirements that must be fulfilled if the claimant can sue. These are-

• Assurance:

A promise must've been made to the claimant.
Does the arts foundation have that? Yes, as Roberto made a promise of donation if a million dollars were raised.

• Reliance:

The claimant must be able to show that they relied on the promise.
Can the arts foundation show that? Yes, since they raised money in lieu of the promise.

• Detriment:

The claimant must be able to show that they have suffered detriment due to the promise.
Has the arts foundation suffered detriment? Yes. They put efforts in raising the money due to the promise and now they are not getting the promised collection.

So we can see that the arts foundation fulfills all three requirements for there to be a case. So, the collection will be awarded to the foundation.

-----

Please upvote if you like my answer. Thank you.