Fact Pattern 13-2
Boyd defends against a breach-of-contract suit by College Credit Corporation by claiming that their deal-a student loan accruing interest at a certain rate and payable beginning on a certain date-was unfair because the consideration for their contract was inadequate.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 13-2. A court is most likely to evaluate the adequacy of consideration if
A) a thing exchanged has no intangible value to one of the parties.
B) something exchanged is not of direct economic or financial value.
C) the items exchanged were of unequal value.
D) there is a gross disparity in the value of the consideration exchanged.

Question

Fact Pattern 13-2​
Boyd defends against a breach-of-contract suit by College Credit Corporation by claiming that their deal-a student loan accruing interest at a certain rate and payable beginning on a certain date-was unfair because the consideration for their contract was inadequate.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 13-2. A court is most likely to evaluate the adequacy of consideration if
A) ​a thing exchanged has no intangible value to one of the parties.
B) ​something exchanged is not of direct economic or financial value.
C) ​the items exchanged were of unequal value.
D) ​there is a gross disparity in the value of the consideration exchanged.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

When there is a gross disparity in the value of the consideration exchanged, the court is most likely to evaluate the adequacy of consideration. In this case, Boyd is claiming that the consideration for their contract with College Credit Corporation was inadequate, which suggests that there may be a gross disparity in the value of the consideration exchanged.

Fact Pattern 13-2​ Boyd Defends Against a Breach-Of-Contract Suit by College Credit Corporation

Fact Pattern 13-2 Boyd Defends Against a Breach-Of-Contract Suit by College Credit Corporation