Ricky signs a 2-year contract to play basketball for the Jolters,for $100,000 per game.Right before a big game,Ricky goes to the owner and says that he will not play unless the owner pays him an additional $5,000 per game.The owner,being desperate,agrees.Now that the season is over,Ricky demands his additional compensation,but the owner refuses to pay.Ricky sues.Which of the following is most likely?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

This case involves the concept of pre-existing duty. Ricky was already obligated to play for $100,000 per game under the original contract. Therefore, his promise to play for an additional $5,000 per game is not supported by new consideration and is not enforceable. The owner wins. Choice A is incorrect because modifying a contract requires new consideration unless it falls under one of the exceptions, which is not applicable here. Choice B is incorrect because contracts can be modified under certain circumstances. Choice C is incorrect because the UCC rules only apply to contracts for the sale of goods. Choice E is incorrect because this modification was not due to unforeseen circumstances.

Ricky Signs a 2-Year Contract to Play Basketball for the Jolters,for