📍 Welcome today is Wednesday, September 7th. We're glad to have you with us. We've got June and Megan on the call here. We've got Number of you jumping on live. And for those of you that are watching later on replay, we're glad to have you with us as well. We've got some bar exam results from July, 2022 to talk about today.
We have some student questions. We're going to talk about Bootcamp and then Megan, you and I, we are going to Wade into the deep waters of consideration, doing a deep dive on that topic. What do you think.
Yeah. I actually really like consideration contracts is not my favorite topic, but for some reason it always kinda makes sense to me.
It's a little bit of a logic puzzle and I enjoy it. So yeah, it'll be fun to get into doing some MBE practice questions. I always enjoy that.
Okay, great. Let me turn it over to you and let's kick it off.
, if you like group coaching than what you'll really love is Bootcamp, which is in person, it's going to be in October this year in central Florida, but it's for any student.
So we already have people registered from as far away as California. So I won't be the only Californian out there which is awesome. But we have people in all sorts of different jurisdictions who are already registered. We do have some spots available. It's going to be no more than 15 people. So once we hit 15, we'll go to a wait list.
But we are super excited to see people in person to be able to talk with them about their writing, about PhotoReading, about their mindset and just be in community with them. And with the other bar, students is just. It's such a, fantastic few days that we all get to spend together cannot recommend it highly enough.
If you're, we're going to talk about results in a bit. If you're someone who has gotten your results and they haven't been favorable, or if you're someone who's going to be in the next couple weeks, getting your results, Florida and looking at you if you are not successful, Just really, can't stress enough how much you should be at Bootcamp.
It is just obviously you guys know, we pretty much work almost entirely with re takers. And so Bootcamp is people who are in your shoes, they're people who are like, I have been trying, and this is just. A mountain that I have yet to scale, and I need a little bit of, help on this path.
And so that's what we're there for. And it's just this unbelievable few days that we get to spend together really diving deep into what do you specifically need to help get you over that
mountain? Yeah. And I want to add, there's a second audience that we want to talk to. We certainly are interested in repeaters for Bootcamp, but we've also found that this is a very productive two days for licensed attorneys who are coming to take a, new test.
And the reason that it's so productive is that taking two days away from your practice. And getting it all at once is so efficient and so helpful. I'm thinking about Frank and Dominic and Nick all of these guys were licensed attorneys. They all came to Bootcamp. They all passed the bar exam and they made the investment to just have that kind of intense work over a couple of days, June.
I know that, you were part of that and you saw that, effect for them.
Yeah, it was fantastic. And, I know that can be like, because Dominic's a judge was a practicing judge and Frank was a practicing attorney and I know a lot of other students were like, why are they here? And it really gave them that boost because Florida is a whole new game to where they were from.
And it had been like 20 years since they'd sat for any. So it's a total different ball game now than it was then. And I think it really elevated them. They really loved Bootcamp. They were both successful as Jackson said, and they have both now moved from up north to Florida and began practicing there.
So it's wonderful just to see that progression in transit.
Yeah, and I just want to point out, regardless of your situation, whether you're a first time taker or repeater Bootcamp is going to be helpful to you and we would encourage you to go if you are looking for that, push across the finish line, if you want the help.
With writing that Megan can give you in a group of five people or the mindset coaching that June can give you in her breakout sessions with just a handful of people. If you really want to learn how to photo reader, even if you are a photo reader, I'm going to take it to a new level for you. And I teach PhotoReading differently than almost anyone in the world.
I'm, certified and authorized. I'm not doing something off book here, but I have a different approach to this than almost anyone in the country. And. It's worth it to be there now, again, we're limiting this to 15 students it's October 14th and 15th June. I'm sure you've already put the link up.
What you have to do is put down a deposit and then pay your balance in full by September 23rd. So you have, it's fully refundable. For some reason, you decide you don't want to do it. So if you're thinking you might not be successful and you want to secure your seat, put down a $250 fully refundable deposit, secure your seat.
And if you need it, then it's therefore you, if you don't need it, you pull it away and we'll give it to the next person in line. So do hope everybody will register. We're getting closer to that deadline now. And we want to make sure that we, get everybody that's interested into Bootcamp. So there you go, Megan, I'll turn it back to
Yeah. And Jackson, I know you wanted to talk briefly about the accommodations at Bootcamp as well because we had some questions from students who'd signed up about where they should stay or what their options are.
Yeah. Some of you have seen our webpage where we talk about the hotel that we're suggesting, which is the Bohemian hotel here in downtown Celebration.
That's one of many, hotels in the Orlando Disney area. It's not the only hotel. It's not where the meetings are being held. We're actually holding them in a private. Country club called the Artisan Club here in Celebration about five minutes away, but there are other hotels in Celebration.
There's something called Melia 360, which is more affordable than the Bohemian. And then there are many, hotels in the area at all kinds of price ranges. So if you need details, send an email to June. She'll be glad to, put you in touch with some of those hotels so that you can make your arrangements.
And that's really the only expense you're going to have is your traveling and hotel. We're going to take care of your meals for Friday and Saturday. So you'll be all set there. Look forward to seeing all of you here in beautiful Orlando in October.
Wonderful. Thanks. All right. Let's chat for a minute now about the results.
We are starting to, they're starting to roll in we're getting a few of our bigger states coming in which is always great to see. So let's let's start with North Carolina. So this year, July the results were overall a 68% pass rate with first time repeaters at 76% or first time takers.
Excuse me, at 76% and repeaters at 32%. Just for comparison sake, the July, 2021 numbers overall much higher. It's. 75%, but what's interesting to me is what went down. Isn't really the repeaters went from 34% to 32. That's pretty pretty much the same sort of thing that's give or take a few people.
But the first time takers. Went down from 84% pass rate last July to 76% this July. So that was really the big driver of the reason why the overall number went down. That's been more unusual that we're seeing the drop happen with the first time takers. So anyway, I thought that was really interesting.
You actually see the same thing in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is odd. They're not a UBE state. They actually, if you went to law school in Wisconsin, you don't, and you're going to practice in Wisconsin. You don't actually have to take the bar exam. So it's a, different sort of sample than any other jurisdiction, really.
But I think it's notable that in Wisconsin they just, the results were just released 59% overall pass rate, 66% first time taker pass rate 33% repeater pass rate. And this was where the decrease from last year was also due to a lower number of first time passers. I think they had the same 33% pass rate, 2021 and 2022.
So it was really the first time takers that caused the decrease in the overall number. So very interesting.
It is. I, think seeing repeat taker rates over 30% is a good sign. I like seeing that the problem of course, is that we're going to get these sort of watching electoral results when Florida and California and New York come in, you start getting these huge numbers and their repeat taker rates tend to be in the 20% range.
So it skews the whole number, I think, for these smaller states. And these are smaller states in North Carolina and Wisconsin, a 33% repeater rate is a good number, but not necessarily indicative of what we expect to see as we get next week into Florida, I would expect the repeat bartake rate, unfortunately, there to be somewhere in the 20 percentile range.
Although as we'll talk about when that happens, Florida is notorious about not actually producing that number. So we have to, do some heavy duty calculus to back our way into it. But nonetheless, that's what I expect.
Wonderful. All right. We also got Iowa results this week, so they had an overall pass rate of 79%, which is great.
First time takers was 83% pass rate and repeaters 31%. So again, right in there with North Carolina and Wisconsin, we're really seeing a lot of these like low thirties for the repeaters. So just interesting. These are all, as Jackson said, small states still, this is really small sample sizes.
I wouldn't, we try to give you guys these snapshots. So even if you didn't take the bar in one of these states, you can have a feeling for what's going on, taking the temperature a bit, but please know that we are very, early in the process. And so this is not poor tend to anything at all yet for the bigger states.
Once we get Florida, I would say that's gives us a bit more of an indication of what's happening really on a larger scale with the July. Then I want to note that Kansas released, but we don't have any statistics on that yet, but we'll let you guys know when we do in terms of this next coming week, what we can expect Arkansas is expected on September 8th, Oklahoma and Washington state are expected on September 9th and then last year Nebraska released on September 8th.
So that's a possibility Again, we will let you guys know what happens. There's always surprises. There's always lots of states who don't tell you when they're going to release. And they just people have panic attacks because they just show up an email just shows up in their inbox. We will let you guys know what's going on when we chat next Wednesday.
Yeah. And again, Florida results, I think are the was it the 19th of September? I think that's right. That's when they're expected. So we will not have Florida results next week when we come to it'll be the week after. Yeah.
Okay, great. We just had a couple of student questions today, so we're going to get through those pretty quickly and then we'll move on to our MBE practice.
All right. First speaking of the results this student said as the July bar exam results are beginning to trickle in I'm wondering which bar taker category I fall into. So as they're looking at these stats, am I considered a repeat taker or first time I've never failed the bar, but this is the first time taking it in this jurisdiction.
For me. That's a great question.
It is a great question. And I would treat it as though you're a first time taker in that jurisdiction. I will say that for statistical purposes, if you're in Florida, unless you are a Florida graduate sitting for the bar exam in the first given administration after your graduation date.
So anything outside of that, you're a repeat bar taker. It's one of those weird things they do in Florida. But it's one of the ways that the Florida law school, some of them manipulate their rates is that they ask people to sit out an ex, an exam to study longer. And that takes 'em out of the first time pass or the first time grouping.
So there's this weird thing that goes on in Florida, but basically it's your first time taking the exam in a jurisdiction. You're a first time taker, as far as we're concerned.
Yeah. And I think too, the key is if you're looking at the stats and trying to say what are my sort of odds here? You, if you've never failed the bar previously, you should put yourself in the category of people who have also never failed the bar, which is going to be the first time takers.
Yeah. Alright next as a question about PhotoReading courses this student purchased the PhotoReading course and wanted to know if it's possible to purchase a PhotoReading for the MBE essays and performance tests as.
Yeah, we do have a package. There are three webinars that we did about PhotoReading.
One for MBE, one for essays and one for performance tests. You can bundle all three of those together. I will also say you'll get all of that if you come to Bootcamp.
You're going to get the live version of all of that, where we actually show you how to apply, not just the mind mapping, but the PhotoReading techniques for all of those pieces. So you'll actually be working and then you'll go to Megan and you'll actually do the writing of the performance test or the writing of the essay after you've done the PhotoReading.
So it's designed to integrate all of that together, but if you can't do that or you just want to purchase the webinars, you can find those in the update center, in your course.
All right. Last student question is what's the procedure for referring a potential new student.
Yeah, we have an affiliate program. We call it brand ambassadors and all you have to do is send an email to June and she can get you into that brand ambassador program.
Now we're doing something actually special with that. Right now, if you refer someone to one of our courses you'll receive a $200 affiliate fee paid up front, even if the person you're referring to is paying monthly. So that's cool. You get your money at all at once we pay via PayPal and you get registered into the program, send a link onto your friend and then when they register, you're taken care of.
Now, if it turns out that you don't get in. Through the affiliate program where it's not connected up, all you have to do is let us know that you are the referring person and we will take care of it that way as well. We really want you to be able to, share our course with other people.
This is the highest affiliate fee we've ever paid. We wanted to do that as a way of saying thank you. And we know that many of you would refer your friends without anything at all, any compensation at all. We understand that, but we do want to express our thanks when you put your confidence and trust in us..
Great. We have a, oh, I'm sorry for you. We have a question in the chat box. That's a great question. Is it true that the Florida bar examiners decide how many applicants they want to admit before the administration of the exam? I've heard that's the reason they're so secretive with their exemption steps.
GE. That's a great question. thanks for asking Megan. The, answer is no one knows except the bar examiners for sure. I can tell you after 35 plus years of watching the Florida exam very carefully, that it would be my sense that is what happens. There is a quota I can't guarantee I can't verify it.
Nobody can verify it. But I think you can look at the numbers and say , there seems to be a hard limit. Florida is by far the most secretive of the states. I think if we compare it to California, which is again, a very tough exam, California's very open, very transparent. Florida is very non transparent.
And so it's really challenging when these numbers come out, Megan and I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reverse engineer them and figure out what the numbers actually mean. It's just very challenging to know what they're doing. So not a very satisfying answer, but I think that's the reality.
The only thing I would add is that honestly, we don't know, and you can't control it if they do or they don't. And so it's something that it's. Really easy to get caught up in like chatter and things like that.
But I think overall, I would say you have to just move forward as though you're in complete control of your own results, because you are, you're in control of your results. So do that. And don't get caught up in the politics of it, of the bar
exam, I think. Yeah. And our students do way better than the averages.
You're, already in good shape if you're in our course.
All right, Jackson, let's move to consideration.
We started this before the last exam. Megan and I started doing these deeper dives on study questions that keep you awake at night.
And we wanted to do a, series of difficult topics. And in that, we're going to show you a mind map if you're already registered. And in our course, this mind map will be downloaded to your course materials in the next few days, as well as the video and the questions. If you're not in our course, I would encourage you to watch this rather than listen, because we're going to be going over some MBE questions and we're going to want to show you the mind map and I think it would be helpful for you.
So today, what we're talking about is how are the consideration rules and contracts and sales applied on the MBE? And as Megan said, it's a an interesting topic. I think of it as a topic that has a lot of distractors, but in point of fact is actually pretty straightforward. And if you don't get too distracted by everything else that's going on, these are actually questions that you can get right.
Very easily as you're going to see here any minute. Now as always, what we want to do is start with a overview of the mind map that will be downloaded to your course materials. You'll find this in your contracts unit, if you're in our course, and this is the consideration mind map, which is part of the contracts mind maps.
Now, when we think about consideration, generally, I want to start by just saying that consideration is defined as a bargain for legal detriment. That's the definition that we want to use. Is there some sort of a bargain for legal detriment? And then we're going to break it into a couple of broader categories.
We're going to talk about bargain and exchange as you see up here. And then we're going to look at the adequacy of consideration and then a couple of modern substitutes for this bargain for legal detriment. So that's the overview of the topic. Doesn't have a lot of material in it. It's got a lot of interesting concepts, but it's all I think, relatively straightforward.
So the topic of consideration starts, as I say, with this definition of bargain for legal detriment. Keep that in mind. When we think about bargain and exchange, which is where a lot of these questions come in, there's. Basic things that I think you want to keep in mind the first is that when we think of bargain and exchange, this is that you're doing something or you're promising to do something that you don't legally have to do.
So this leads us into something called the preexisting duty rule. If you already had a preexisting duty, then you don't have a bargain for exchange. So something that you want to be thinking about as you analyze a problem. You're also going to see a category called a losery promises. These are the statements that say things like if I want to, or I might, or I'm thinking about doing something, that's not a real promise.
It's not a bargain for exchange. You'll also find questions around alternative promises and conditional gifts, and then something called nominal consideration. And we'll take a deeper look at some of those things as we get into the questions as well. Now, when we think about the other big part of this for me is adequacy of consideration.
And we get a lot of questions that deal with the adequacy of the consideration. Once we've defined that there might be some consideration. If you're in a UCC article two problem you'll deal with outputs and requirements, contracts, and there's some specific rules. Sometimes you'll have promises that the court implies.
And so the court adds consideration for us. Sometimes a adequacy of consideration would be just, I'm not going to Sue you that's forbearance from a lawsuit. Then we also have voidable and unenforceable promises are those adequate consideration. And the answer is probably not. And then we have something called a conditional promise.
A conditional promise would be called a future event or an allegory promise. And you will see a lot of that in the MBE questions. And so you want to be watching for those because conditional promises create an interesting problem around whether or not they're adequate consideration. There are also some discussions of multiple exchanges of promises and the recitals of consideration.
But those are not generally the areas where we get a lot of questions, but I want you to be aware of this conditional promises and avoidable and unenforceable promises. Now, there are some modern substitutes for bargain and consideration, and we will look very quickly at those. One of them is called promissory estoppel.
This is a substitute reliance for bargain, but it requires detrimental reliance. So when you see promissory estoppel, you gotta have detrimental reliance that goes in. But what is promissory estoppel? It's a promise in which. The promisor should reasonably expect to induce an action and it's going to be binding if injustice could be avoided only by enforcement.
So basically you've got a promise that should have been expected to induce action if it was binding. And if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. So promissory, estoppel, big area of these kinds of questions and something you want to be familiar. All right, Megan, that's our overview. Are, you back from walking the dog?
I am not walking the dog. Just kidding him. Letting the dog in, not barking. Sorry about that.
All right. No worries. So we're going to go to our first of a couple of questions here, and again, I want to just remind you as you're listening today. Or watching to not be distracted. These questions, fact patterns seem to have a lot in them, but they're actually very simple.
So keep that in mind. We're going for simple here. Not complicated. All right. Let me read question. Number one. Without permission. Junior age 16 took the neighbors card to drive Junior's girlfriend to dinner. Junior shortly thereafter had an accident damaging an automobile owned by stranger junior called his uncle Joe, who went to the garage where the cars had been to.
Joe was there talking to stranger and a policeman about the accident? There were no threats of arrest or suit, but during the discussion, Joe, the uncle told stranger to have his car repaired and that he, Joe would pay for it. Later the same day before any repair work had been commenced or cost estimate presented to him.
Joe had a change of heart and told stranger in the shop foreman of the garage, holding the car that he would not pay for the repairs. So the promise of Joe, and now we're going to be asked, what about this promise of Joe and Megan? How would you start to analyze this from a, selective intuition stand?
Yeah, I think I would definitely be asking myself, can we enforce the promise? That's the, base question that I'm, that I want to think about first is yes or no. Can we enforce this promise that Joe made? And then why or why not? So I want to think about the things that he did and how they, any requirements or duties that he had, or didn't have to begin with and how it all melds together to answer that question of, was it an enforceable promise or an unenforceable.
And that's exactly what we're trying to get to. And remember here that they say there's no threat of arrest or suit so we can take out forbearance from suits. So that's a nice piece to get rid of. Let's look at our answer. Possibilities that with that in mind, when we ask about the promise of Joe answer choice, say a says it was supported by consideration.
So there's our choice. A B says the promise of Joe was not supported by consideration because of the preexisting duty. Choice C says the promise of Joe was not supported by consideration because no act or return promise was given by stranger. And then D the promise of Joe was enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
All right now, as you start to think about that you can see, we've got a couple of answers here in which the promise of Joe is either supported by consideration or is enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which we just talked about. That was detrimental reliance. Megan, , any thoughts here as you're looking at these answer choices?
I think you can see the, two sort of different places here of was supported by consideration or two was not, which I think are really interesting when that happens, because then obviously what you need to do is, if you think there was not adequate consideration here, you need to give the reason why.
Because it's not enough to just. Come to that conclusion, but think about, okay what's the reason why I don't think there was valid consideration in this case. And then of course the promissory estoppel is like its own little wrinkle sitting out there in D so yeah.
Let's look at the answer choice explanations. All right. Answer choice A said the promise of Joe was supported by consideration.
I hope nobody answered this way because it clearly wasn't supported by consideration. It was a gratuitous promise to pay for strangers damage. Stranger didn't suffer anything or agree to suffer any legal detriment in return, such as for going lawsuit. So just on that basis alone answer choice a is in correct.
What about answer choice B? That said that the promise of Joe was not supported by consideration because the preexisting duty rule. So here you have to look at the preexisting duty rule and ask yourself what's going on there. Joe was under no preexisting duty of any sort stranger. He's not under an obligation to pay for the damage caused by junior, just because of the family relat.
Now, if Joe had been Junior's parent, he might have been obligated to make restitution for junior, particularly if junior wasn't a minor, but here as his uncle, there's no need for that. So the preexisting duty rule doesn't really save us in this situation. Megan, you want to add anything to that?
I think it's that's what we talk about with you guys a lot that on the MBE and even with the essays as well, it's like asking the question, why did they put that information in? seems odd almost that they tell you that it's his uncle. Here's why they tell you it's his uncle, right?
Because the uncle relationship makes it feel like he is family, but obviously we know your uncle is not responsible for your actions. Unless they are your legal guardian, right? When you're a minor. So it's those sorts of hints and clues that you can find in MBE questions, just like on the essay.
Yeah. Okay. Answer choice C turns out to be our correct answer. The promise of Joe was not supported by consideration because no act or return promise was given by stranger. This is the obvious answer to me. There's no request for a return promise or an act to be performed by stranger. So without consideration, Joe's free to change his mind about paying for the repairs.
So again, if you don't get distracted by all the other stuff, this is pretty straightforward. Isn't. Yeah,
definitely. And I will say the people who were brave and took a shot, got it. So good job. Yeah.
You. And for those of you that answered choice D the promise of Joe was enforceable under the doctor and promissory estoppel.
That's not correct. There was no detrimental reliance because the repair work hadn't been started. Now, if it had been started, I think you might get to promissory estoppel, but there was no way to hold Joe libel on promissory estoppel theory. All right. That's our first question. We ready to go to the second one?
Megan, we are all right. Now, this one's long. So bear with me. We're going to give you a setup and then we're going to give you the question. So here's our setup. Mother and father were married in 1960 and they had two children. Sam born in 62 and Dorothy, born in 64. Mother and father were divorced in 1990 during the marriage father was a successful lawyer who accumulated a net worth of about $500,000 held mostly in money market bank accounts.
Mother was a doctor with the net worth of approximately 600,000 at the time of divorce. After the divorce father transferred his money market accounts to a joint account between himself and Dorothy. So remember, Dorothy is the daughter when he opened the new accounts with Dorothy, he said, these accounts will be legally yours when I die.
If you agree to share them equally with your brother, Dorothy said, quote, that's. Dorothy then contacted Sam and told him of the transfer, but did not inform Sam of her promise to father to share any amount remaining at father's death with Sam equal. Mother died in 1993 and shortly after the funeral, mother's lawyer contacted Sam and told him that mother's will had made him the sole leg a team.
Now that's just the setup. We don't even have the question yet. So when you get a long question like this, Megan, don't you think it helps to just jot down and figure out the relationships, right? Mother, father, son, right. And, get a feeling for this, because this is one where it's going to seem much more complicated to you than it really is.
All right. So now we get to the actual question. Upon learning of the contents of mother's will Sam called Dorothy. So brother calling sister, and said, I don't understand why mother left everything to me because you and she were close. I am willing to share my inheritance with you. Will you please come down to Miami so that we can discuss this?
Dorothy promptly took a plane to Miami spending $500 to meet with Sam. Sam promised to share his mother's estate equally with Dorothy, if she would share the accounts she held jointly with father as described to both. Dorothy agreed shortly thereafter, Sam wrote to Dorothy as follows " I've changed my mind and intend to follow mothers testamentary wishes."
I will not share her estate with you. All right. Now we get finally to the question. If Dorothy brings a suit against Sam to enforce the son's promise to share mothers estate equally, which of the following will constitute either consideration or a valid substitute for consideration so that the promise is enforceable.
So what we've got here, Megan is now the question is asking, how are we going to get to consideration or substitute for consideration?
So you're going to want to be thinking through with the fact pattern. Is there anything I can grab onto and hold onto as some kind of consideration or stand in for consideration?
All right. Let's look at what we've got. So if Dorothy brings suit against Sam to enforce, son's promise to share mothers of state equally, which of the following will constitute either consideration or a valid substitute for consideration so that the promise is enforce. A says, Dorothy made a promise in return to share father's estate.
With Sam B says Dorothy's trip to Miami constituted, acceptance of a bargain four request made by Sam C says Dorothy, relied to her detriment on Sam's promise to share the estate in that she traveled to Miami at her own expense to discuss the details of the agreement. And D says none of the. Right now, this is an interesting form of the answer.
When you look at it, Megan, B and C kinda look like the same answer, don't
they? Yeah, they do. They definitely do very similar.
Now the, basic technique here is when you see two answers that look the same. What do you do with them? Yeah, you can
probably cross them off.
probably can cross them off. I'm not saying for sure but, that's my first cut.
So that really, for me, makes it pretty simple. It's A, or D .Either Dorothy made a promise in return to share fathers estate with Sam or it's none of those above. So as you're looking, take your answer choice A, B, C, or D mark it and again, the answers are actually relatively simple after that big wind up aren't they?
All right. Good. Let's see what we've got. Answer. choice A says, Dorothy, made a promise in return to share fathers and estate with Sam. That is incorrect. That is not adequate consideration.
Now that is what Sam bargained for, but Dorothy was already under a preexisting legal duty to Sam as the third party beneficiary of her promised to father to share father's inheritance with Sam. So when you have a preexisting legal duty, remember we talked about that where preexisting legal duty exists.
That promise then is not good at consideration because it is the preexisting duty. So in that case, a cannot be. Anything to add
to that? No, I think that's great. I think that's one of those where you really have to think with consideration about how it has to cost someone something and doing something that you're already obligated to do is not costing you anything.
That's right. So answer choice B the trip to Miami. Nope, that's not right. Sam didn't make a bargain for Dorothy to make the trip to Miami. That was just a condition of their talking. So that's not acceptance of an offer and that's incorrect. C, basically the same thing. The trip didn't constitute substantial reliance.
So we don't have a theory of promissory, estoppel, and Sam didn't intend to induce substantial reliance by asking his sister to come down to Miami, to talk to him. Because at that time he hadn't promised to give her anything so more detail, but functionally the same reasoning. And that leads us with answer choice D none of the above.
And sometimes one of those, none of the above is correct. All right. Here's on the same fact pattern. We're still on the same problem. Shortly after the divorce mother had written the following letter to Sam.
Dorothy, I know the divorce proceedings between your father and me have heard all of us, but in consideration of your emotional support for me during that trying time and your love and affection for me, I promise to divide my estate between you and equal shares. You can count on your mother's.
Dorothy thereafter continued her usual practice of calling mother once a week, visiting her at Christmas and on her birthday and bringing appropriate gifts each time after mother's death. In 1993, mother's lawyer contacted Sam and told him that mother's will made him the sole legacy. Now if Dorothy sues the executor of mother's estate for one half of that estate, based upon mother's letter to her, she will.
And here's our answer choices, a win because her emotional supportive mother during the divorce constituted valid consideration for mother's promise or B Dorothy will win because she relied to her detriment on mother's promise by visiting mother and giving her gift. C shall win because even though mother's letter is a promise to make a gift in the future, the promise is in writing and intended by mother to be enforceable and therefore needs no consideration or D lose because mother's promise was not supported by consideration.
All right. Very quickly. Choose your answer. We've got three choices in which Dorothy wins and one in which she loses.
Answer choice A that Dorothy would win because the emotional supportive mother constituted valid consideration that's incorrect that wasn't bargain for consideration.
It was voluntarily given by Dorothy. So there wasn't any promise to leave the property by. And it was done before. There was a promise to leave the property by will. So the promise is not enforceable. So a is incorrect. B because she relied she'd win because she relied to her detriment on mother's promise by visiting mom and giving her gifts.
No under the doctrine promissory estoppel, you have to have the promise being enforceable, absent consideration, but it's not enough that visiting mother occasionally and bringing small gifts is substantial, detrimental reliance. So sorry, christmas and birthday gifts don't rise to that level. What about answer choice C Dorothy would win because even though mother's letter is a promise to make a gift in the future, the promise was in writing and intended to be enforceable and therefore needs no consideration.
That's not true. Promises to make gifts in the future are unenforceable, even if they're in writing and are intended by the promise, or to be enforceable, a promise to make a gift. Remember that's an illusory promise doesn't involve a bargain for exchange. And in that case, the requirement of consideration is not fulfilled.
And so that leaves us with answer choice D that is our correct answer. Again, Dorothy will lose because mother's promise was not supported by consideration. There was no consideration at all given, and there was no substitute for consideration. So that's what we've got. And wow. That's it's not all that complicated really.
When you think about it, is it Megan?
Yeah, no. And everybody did really well on those questions. The people who were brave and put it in the chat box of super proud of you guys people did super well. So hopefully this makes sense. I think that consideration is not terribly complicated, but I think we overcomplicate it.
So hopefully this how well everyone did on it shows you if you just take a breath and think about it logically. Is this costing someone, something, it doesn't have to be a monetary cost, but are they giving something up? Is there something that they're bound to that they're, losing out on something then that's consideration. It's not consideration if it's something that they already had to do anyway, or they're really not giving anything or that sort of losery promise of maybe I'll give you something in the future, they're not bound to it. So hopefully that makes sense that I thought you guys did a great.
Yeah, me too. It's fun to do. We'll do more of those as we get heading up into the February exam. So from time to time, we will come back with more subjects. I know we're going to run for now. Thank you all for being here. We will be back next Wednesday and we'll have more results and more information and getting closer to Bootcamp and excited to have everybody there.