Time budget
- Floor
- Quiz (0:00–0:25) + item-level debrief (0:25–0:55). The quiz happens. The debrief covers every item with the doctrinal trap explained. ~55 min.
- Target
- Floor + skills assessment (0:55–1:40) at scheduled scope. The deliverable is collected at the end. ~85 min.
- Ceiling
- Target + bridge (1:40–1:50) — wrap and preview of the next module's central problem. Full ~110 min.
By the end of this class, you can
- Administer the Module III capstone exercise and diagnose where students confuse consideration, estoppel, and restitution.
- Apply R2d §§ 71, 90, and 86 in sequence to a layered fact pattern and pick the controlling doctrine.
This meeting is the Module III Capstone. The Capstone structure block below sets the time blocks for the meeting.
Why a capstone here
Module III closes consideration and its alternatives (promissory estoppel, promissory restitution). The drafting skills assessment puts the doctrine to work: students draft a one-page reliance letter relying on R2d § 90. The exercise moves them from recognizing the doctrine in a casebook hypothetical to using it in the voice of a lawyer addressing an opposing party.
Capstone structure for Consideration
In-class MCQ via Brightspace, about 20–25 items, 25 minutes. Counts 5% toward the semester grade. Students with extended-time accommodations take the same quiz in a separate room; they rejoin the classroom for the skills assessment block once they finish.
Walk through each MCQ. For each: the right answer + why; the strongest wrong answer + why it's wrong; the doctrinal trap the question was testing. The debrief uses the quiz itself as the synthesis text for the module.
A 45-minute supervised drafting, negotiation, redlining, or damages-computation exercise tied to the module's central problem. The exercise runs as part of class participation, not as a discrete graded instrument.
Wrap; preview the next module's central problem; frame the doctrinal pivot. On the final-module Capstone of each semester, the bridge block becomes exam-prep orientation: rubric, time-budget guidance, study method.
Slide deck
Spacebar / arrow keys to advance. Press F for fullscreen. Click Print / PDF for handouts. PPTX export is professor-only.
Cases under review
Consolidating prior coverage. Re-read the holdings; the Capstone quiz draws here.
- Hamer v. Sidway 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) Forbearance from the exercise of a legal right is sufficient consideration, even if the promisor receives no economic benefit. Consideration looks to the promisee's detriment as much as to the promisor's gain.
- Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. 895 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) A promisor's avoidance of a cost or burden can be consideration. When a promisee accepts a 'free' material at the promisor's invitation, and the promisor thereby escapes a disposal obligation, the transaction is a bargain, not a conditional gift.
- Conrad v. Fields 2007 WL 2106302 (Minn. Ct. App. July 24, 2007) Promissory estoppel requires a clear and definite promise, foreseeable reliance, actual reliance to the promisee's detriment, and injustice that can only be avoided by enforcement. Tuition for a course of study undertaken in reliance is a recoverable detriment.
- Ricketts v. Scothorn 57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365 (1898) A gratuitous promise that induces foreseeable, substantial action in reliance becomes enforceable to the extent justice requires. Reliance can supply what bargain does not.
- Drake v. Bell 26 Misc. 237, 55 N.Y.S. 945 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1899) Where a benefit has been conferred under circumstances showing an expectation of payment, and the recipient promises to pay after receiving the benefit, the promise is enforceable. Mistake in the identity of the benefited party does not defeat recovery when the actual recipient knowingly accepts and promises.
- Mills v. Wyman 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825) A moral obligation alone is not sufficient consideration to support a promise. A promise to pay for benefits already conferred to a third person (here, an adult son) is unenforceable for want of consideration.
- Webb v. McGowin 27 Ala. App. 82, 168 So. 196 (1935) Where the promisee has materially benefited the promisor by an act done at risk to the promisee, a subsequent promise to pay for that benefit is enforceable; moral obligation can support such a promise when accompanied by a material benefit previously received.
Notes
This meeting was originally labeled 'Promissory Restitution + Module III Wrap.' Under the resolved capstone structure it becomes the Module III Capstone, with Module III's scored MCQ in the first block and the Promissory Estoppel drafting exercise in the skills-assessment block.