8/3/2019 Blaw 280- Gottlinb, PC1, PC2, PC7

1/4

Symone AndrewProfessor CarrBlaw 280November 7, 2011

Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino

Issue: Did the actions of Gottlieb provide legal value that amounted to consideration to enforceTropicanas promise?

Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise.Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when apromisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerations

rule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchangefor making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of thesame value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for inexchange for making the promise.

Application: Gottlieb would argue that there was a consideration with Tropicana because shehad given the casino her name, address, and email to be a Diamond Club member. By Gottliebbeing a member, she gave the casino something of legal value that she had no prior legal duty todo. She allowed them to track her gambling habits every time she used her card at a slotmachine. The casino required this from Gottlieb in exchange for promising her access topromotions that the casino held. Even though this information is not of the same value as what

the casino has promised Gottlieb, it is still enforceable because they got what they asked for inexchange for making their promise. Gottlieb went to the casino, waited in line to spin the wheel,and swiped her card, and provided entertainment for the casino guest, all of which she had nolegal duty to do.

Tropicana would argue that there was no consideration with Gottlieb because she did not provideanything of legal value to the casino in return for their promise. Since Gottlieb did not doanything of legal value in exchange for the promise that Tropicana made there was noconsideration and no contract formed. If there was something of legal value exchanged byGottlieb for the promise made by Tropicana it was not of the same value, which means that itshould not be enforceable for them to fulfill the promise made.

Conclusion: The motion for summary judgment on the contract claim is denied in favor ofMs. Gottlieb. The elements for consideration was met with the legal value that Gottlieb agreed tothat was bargain for by Tropicana in exchange for their promise.

PC 1 Case Brief

8/3/2019 Blaw 280- Gottlinb, PC1, PC2, PC7

2/4

Issue: Was there a consideration formed to enforce Calabros dads promise?

Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise.Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when a

promisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerationsrule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchangefor making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of thesame value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for inexchange for making the promise.

Application: Calabro would argue that her dad had made a promise to pay for her schoolexpenses to a private school in exchange for her getting 10,000 in financial aid. Calabro wouldsay that she could have gone to the University of Oklahoma with everything paid for but decidednot to because of the promise her dad had made. She had given up her legal right to go thisschool because of the promise her dad has made.

The dad would argue that there was no consideration made between them two because there wasnothing of legal value given by Calabro that was bargained for by him for the exchange of thepromise. The dad would say that he made this promise to her but, it was purely gratuitousbecause he neither asked for nor received anything in exchange for making the promise. Thispromise is unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration.

Conclusion: Summary Judgment awarded to the dad. The promise is unenforceable because itwas not supported by consideration.

PC 2 Case Brief

8/3/2019 Blaw 280- Gottlinb, PC1, PC2, PC7

3/4

Issue: Was there consideration to support Zhangs agreement to pay more

for the house in question?

Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise.Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when apromisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerationsrule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchangefor making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of thesame value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for inexchange for making the promise.

Application: For Sorichetti:

-Sorichetti believed that under nevada law he could retract an acceptance within three days, so hedid not intentionally defraud Mr. Zhang.-Sorichetti agreed to go through with the sale after bargaining with Zhang for more time to spendin his home and more money.-Sorichetti offered up more furniture and went through with the sale which benefited Mr. Zhang-Mr. Zhang agreed to the counter offer brought forth by Mr. Sorichetti.

For Zhang:-Sorichetti illegally backed out of their contract using what he thought was a fact about Nevadalaw to weasel money out of Mr. Zhang.

Conclusion: Judgement in favor of Sorichetti because Zhang got what heasked for in exchange for his money.

PC 7 Case Brief

8/3/2019 Blaw 280- Gottlinb, PC1, PC2, PC7

4/4

Issue: Was there consideration to support Corrines promise to pay the$40,000 to Brian and Ruth?

Rule: Consideration is legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise.Legal value is when a promisee does something he had no prior legal duty to do or when apromisee refrains from doing something he has a legal right to do. Adequacy of considerationsrule is when the promisors promise is enforceable if they got what they asked for in exchangefor making their promise, even if what they asked for and what they got in return are not of the

same value. Bargained for exchange is when the promisor receives what was asked for inexchange for making the promise.

Application: For Corrine:-Corrines signature on the note that Ruth wrote up would only be consideration if her actionswould actually save her sons marriage. (adequacy of consideration)

Against Corrine:-Brian had bargained for land by telling his mother that her signature... might save hismarriage.-Corrine had legal value to give Ruth and Brian $40,000 from the sale of the land, when she

signed the note that Ruth drafted.-Corrines legal value (the selling price of the land) was bargained for in exchange for a promiseto her son.

Conclusion: Judgement in favor of Brian and Ruth because their wasadequate consideration.