A homeowner contacts a landscaping company to trim the hedges around their house. The company provides a written agreement stating that they will do the job for $500, and the homeowner signs the agreement. Later, the homeowner argues that the agreement is not enforceable because the company could have performed the same service for free. How should the enforceability of the agreement be evaluated?
The enforceability of a contract does not depend on whether the service could be rendered for free.
The contract includes an exchange of value and mutual agreement, which are essential elements for enforceability.
Oral contracts can be enforceable if they involve consideration and mutual agreement.
The enforceability of a contract is not contingent upon the payment reflecting market value.
The agreement is enforceable because it includes a bargained-for exchange between the homeowner and the landscaping company. The landscaping company’s promise to trim the hedges constitutes consideration, as does the homeowner's promise to pay $500. Consideration does not require that the service or payment reflect market value or account for hypotheticals such as whether the service could have been performed for free. Answer options suggesting otherwise misunderstand the principles of consideration: enforceability is predicated on the mutual exchange, not subjective or market-based valuations.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is consideration in a contract?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is mutual agreement important in a contract?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a contract to be enforceable?