Noteworthy, gift promises are always considered unenforceable under the contract law because they often lack consideration. In day-to-day life when people are making promises, it is always expected to give consideration in exchange for a particular promise agreed upon the parties involved. For this case, Presley promised to pay off the remaining mortgage as a gratitude to Alden’s home, but the plaintiff had not given any consideration in exchange for the promise. According to Glodman and Sigismond, (2014), the principle of promissory estoppels is necessary when it comes to the enforcement of promises that are not supported by consideration. Whenever such circumstances occur, then it is quite evident that a particular promise will not have been completed. Consequently, it exempted Presley’s estate from paying off the $40,000 mortgage.
It is important to note that Jo Laverne Alden’s reliance on the defendant’s promise to her loss will be based on the theory of promissory estoppels which is found within the realms of business law (Glodman and Sigismond, 2014). The promise to settle the Alden home mortgage is not enforceable because the promise is described as being an unreasonable gift that lacks considerations. Conclusively, if the promise needed to be changed into a binding contract, then Alden ought to have offered to do something in exchange for the promise given. As a result, the court would have ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Goldman, A. J., & Sigismond, W. D. (2014). Business law: principles and practices. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.