> "Stuart A. Bronstein"
>
> > If you agree to do something without compensation of any kind, it's a
> > gratuitous promise, and not legally enforceable. In other words, if
> > you receive no consideration for your promise, no contract is formed,
> > and you can't be held liable for failure to complete what you
> > promised to do.
>
> Unless someone reasonably relies on your promise, to their detriment, in
> which case an action for detrimental reliance or promissory estoppel
> might apply.
True. Such _equitable_ causes of action are sometimes called "quasi-contract" because they may apply in circumstances where contract law, itself, provides _no_ remedy, which is what Stu was talking about. The person claiming detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment on equitable grounds will have to prove _more_ than just that an unfulfilled, gratuitous promise was made, in order to recover, in other words.
> Actually, in the charitable context, detrimental reliance may not even be
> necessary.
That's because, in those states (such as MD) which recognize such a charitable right, the charity's cause of action against the deadbeat donor is considered to sound IN CONTRACT, not as an equitable matter of quasi-contract. The "consideration" given to the charitable donor is presumed to be the warm fuzzies he gets by donating to a good cause. Another way to look at it is that the act of "giving consideration" sufficient to form a binding contract includes not only the giving of a _benefit_ to the person receiving that consideration, but also includes the incurring of a _detriment_ as another form of the "giving" of consideration.
One common example given to law students of that kind of consideration is this story: a rich uncle tells a dissolute nephew that Uncle will pay Nephew a million dollars if Nephew quits smoking and drinking for a year. If Nephew takes Uncle up on that challenge and and mends his ways for a year, he can legally _enforce_ the promise by Uncle - not because Uncle incurred any personal _benefit_ from Nephew's altered behavior, but because Nephew incurred a _detriment_ (by refraining from doing something that, legally, he had every _right_ to do).
Another example involves prize contests. Putting aside for the moment the fact that such events are often closely regulated by the law (to prevent fraud and/or to make sure they are not a form of illegal gambling), if the contestant jumps thru all the hoops set up by the contest organizer he may have "earned" the prize (i.e. he may have given sufficient consideration to form a binding contract) by doing those silly things, incurring a detriment, even if the organizer has not himself gained any benefit thereby (aside from the "promotional and other consideration" they always tell you about in the fine print).
The charitable organization "incurs a detriment" in consideration of the donor's pledge when it adds that pledge amount into the total it thinks it has collected in its current campaign, and makes plans in reliance on that pledge amount -- both as to how big and fancy a new edifice they can construct with the existing building fund, and also as to when they can _stop_ hitting up _other_ potential donors to make that paper-and-tinfoil "Have We Reached Our Goal Yet?" thermometer tacked up on the bulletin board in the church lobby, burst out over the top.
How does that theory differ from "quasi-contract" and "detrimental reliance?" Search me. As a practical matter, what it means is simply, as Cy notes, that in those states, the charity does not need to _prove_ that they acted in detrimental reliance on the pledge (_after_ it was received) in order to stake its claim to the amount of the reneging donor's unpaid pledge. Such reliance is _assumed_ to form "consideration" (and thus, a binding contract) from the moment the pledge is given.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
