How to Analyze Contract Modification & The Preexisting Duty Rule on a Contracts Essay

📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/...
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/...
Free courses: studicata.com/...
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/...
Testimonials: studicata.com/...
Submit a review: shoutout.studi...
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/...
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: [e-mail]
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Contract Modification & The Preexisting Duty Rule on a Contracts Essay
CONTRACT MODIFICATION
A contract modification occurs when the parties to a contract change or add additional terms to an existing enforceable contract.
Under the common law, a contract modification must be supported by consideration. The preexisting duty rule stipulates that a promise to do something of which the party is already legally obligated to do, by contract or otherwise, is not consideration.
Under the UCC, a contract modification need NOT be supported by consideration. The UCC stipulates that a contract modification will be valid if the parties enter into the modification in good faith.
WATCH OUT FOR THIS COMMONLY-TESTED TRICK FACT PATTERN
A rents an apartment from B for one year at a rent of $2,000 per month. Nine months into the lease contract, A (running short on cash) and B both agree to modify the rent to $1,500 per month for the remainder of the lease. Subsequently, B crosses out the $2,000 price term on the original lease and writes in $1,500 as the new price term. Both A and B sign and initial the contract to approve the modification. At the end of the month, A pays B the agreed upon $1,500. B then sues A for $500 for breach of contract. Will B recover the $500?
Yes. Under the common law, B can successfully sue A at the end of the month for $500, because the modification was NOT supported by consideration. A had a preexisting legal duty to pay B the full $2,000. Thus, the $1,500 A paid B does NOT constitute consideration for the modification. Therefore, the original contract controls and A is in breach of contract having only paid $1,500 of the $2,000 owed to B.
Learn more: studicata.com

[@samiullahnasrat5218]

I swear that these videos are much much better than BARBRI and THEMIS bar prep courses. Wonderful job!

[@studicata]

Thank you for the support!

[@dunyaadventures]

@@studicata I wish you had videos for all MEE subjects!

[@maviswryter3557]

You’re honestly the best. You make studying for the bar less tedious for me . Thank you so much, God bless.

[@pengalicious91]

This guy is brilliant!! Honestly doing the Bar and just got this concept!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@LedSledJoe]

Note: you do not have a legal right to smoke crack cocaine.

[@justinordie]

important to note the past behavior of being a good tenant is not consideration because it is moral/past consideration which does not count as valid consideration.

[@nonono3141]

Marcus Wilkerson excellent response

[@julialubitz199]

I have to write legal briefs for one of my classes and this helped me so much! I was able to completely debunk a modification due to the fact that I was able to show that there was no additional consideration within the modification.

[@jonathanlindsey7623]

Note on ethics. Don't go over anyone's head, but you do have superiors who are there for you.

[@hyojinlee]

This is great, thank you!!

[@amandaalteri7398]

Excellent teacher! Way better than the legal courses. Thank you!

[@julialubitz199]

Thank you so much. This literally saved my life!!!

[@jonathanlindsey7623]

Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted

[@vincentchen2389]

how the hell does he keep saying crack cocaine so straight 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@sommersharpe7861]

Amazing! Thank you so much.. Life saver.

[@susanpatten9864]

If B would have cashed the $1500 check, that would have constituted accord and satisfaction, though, correct? Your videos are soooo helpful - thank you!

[@burrujack306]

Wonderful, just wonderful.

[@AndrewLeTV]

Excellent professor! Thank you.

[@katelynbaltes6301]

These are amazing! Thank you!!!

[@betzy1508]

Thank you, you're awesome!

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help!

[@courtneyyoung5250]

What about promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration?

[@kirylmarchuk8196]

Yup, if there is a promise, reliance, detriment... "detrimental reliance on a promise."

[@laurenassayag9595]

Great video! Would the modification have to be in writing?

[@omarnajib102]

🤗 very very helpful

[@studicata]

Thank you!

[@dashu777]

Thank you!! Amazing!

[@user-li6bn5fm6c]

Thank you very much ... Your passion and profesional

[@studicata]

Sure, happy to help!

[@user-li6bn5fm6c]

@@studicatathanks...

[@HolaImJalen]

Great video!

[@karlam.candogan5693]

Thanks law school angel 👼

[@rozchristopherson648]

Bravo !!!

[@itups123]

Thanks so much

[@johnchernabcinterviewandca3153]

Jeez, where was this dude when I was 1L

[@americantimesnews7116]

You would make a great professor .. as einstein famously said " if you cant understand it simply ... you dont know it well enough"

[@jonathanlindsey7623]

Music does exist

[@maxk6867]

Update - you can smoke crack cocaine in Oregon

[@studicata]

🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap