Defendant now refuses to refund plaintiff’s money for lack of consideration. Did mutual consideration exist between the parties? Explain.
Plaintiff, Brenner, entered into a contract with the defendant, Little Red School House, Ltd., which stated that in return for a non-refundable tuition of $1,080, Brenner’s son could attend defendant’s school for a year. When Brenner’s ex-wife refused to enroll their son, plaintiff sought and received a verbal promise of a refund. Defendant now refuses to refund plaintiff’s money for lack of consideration. Did mutual consideration exist between the parties? Explain.
This may be a case of contract modification. Here, the contract is modified when the defendant gives verbal promise to the plaintiff of a refund. The promise by the defendant is binding since the plaintiff has suffered detriment of the right to send their child to school. So, the plaintiff should receive valid consideration in the form of refund of money.
Initially there existed a mutual consideration between the parties since the promisee received a promise from the school that they are going to refund the money.
But later, the school refused to do so.