A homeowner hires a contractor to remodel their kitchen. The written agreement specifies that the contractor will complete the project for $25,000, payable upon completion. Halfway through the work, the contractor realizes that due to unexpected supply chain delays, the costs will increase by $5,000. The contractor tells the homeowner that they will not finish the project unless the homeowner agrees to pay the additional $5,000. The homeowner, unable to find another contractor, reluctantly agrees to pay the increase. Once the work is completed, the homeowner refuses to pay the additional $5,000. Is the homeowner legally obligated to pay the additional amount?
Yes, because the homeowner expressly agreed to the modification in order to avoid delays.
No, because the completion of the project was a condition precedent to enforcing such modifications.
Yes, because the contractor incurred unexpected costs due to supply chain delays.
No, because the homeowner’s additional promise to pay was not supported by new consideration.
The correct answer is based on the principle of consideration in contract law. Any modification to a contract must be supported by new consideration—a bargained-for legal detriment or benefit. Here, the contractor’s promise to finish the work was already required under the original contract, meaning there was no new consideration for the homeowner’s promise to pay the additional $5,000. This renders the modification unenforceable. The incorrect options misconstrue the requirements of consideration by suggesting that external pressures or unilateral decisions justify enforcement.
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.