The existing customs rule is a consequence of the counterparty requirement. Since a reflection that makes contracts enforceable must be «negotiated,» the consideration cannot consist of a benefit that the party already had a duty to fulfill. If the party was legally required to do something in all cases, then approval to do just that is not a new reflection that must have been «negotiated» by the other party.  Therefore, a party`s offer to obtain a benefit already required by an existing contract, working period or legislation is insufficient to take into account a new contract or modification of an existing contract. However, a valid reflection that has been made in the past to support a promise may, in certain circumstances, form the basis of another subsequent contract. These occur when a person`s obligation to act for one reason or another has no longer become binding. If the person then makes a new promise on the basis of the unsatisfied obligation of the past, the new promise will be binding without further consideration. There are three types of cases. Timko was a member of the board of directors of a school. He recommended that the school buy a building for a considerable amount of money and encourage administrators to vote for the purchase and promised to help with the purchase and, at the end of five years, pay the purchase price minus the down payment. Timko died after four years. The school continued his succession, which defended on the grounds that there was no quid pro quo for the promise.
Timko was promised or nothing was given in return, and the purchase of the building was not of direct use to him (which would have made the promise enforceable as a unilateral contract). The court ruled that Timko`s estate was held liable after Solator Estoppel`s three-way test. Estate of Timko v. Oral Roberts Evangelistic Assn., 215 N.W.2d 750 (Me. A similar problem arises with respect to production contracts and demand contracts. In a production contractAn agreement to sell all of its goods or services to one person, the seller – say a coal company – agrees to sell all of its annual coal production to an electricity supplier. Did she really agree to produce and sell coal? And if the owner of the coal mine decides to stop production to take a year off, is this a violation of the agreement? Yes, yes. The law requires the seller to manufacture and sell a reasonable amount. Similarly, when the electricity supplier is responsible for purchasing all of its coal requirements from the coal company – a contract of needIn agreement to buy all requirements (of goods or services) from a single source.- could it decide to shut down the operation completely and not take coal? No, it is necessary to take a reasonable amount.
The defendant Tilford Reppert thus remains the only entitled. Records show he was deputy sheriff in Rockcastle County at the time of the arrest, but the arrest and recovery of the stolen money took place in Pulaski County. He was not competent and therefore was not legally required to make the arrest and is therefore entitled to request and receive the reward. In [citation], it was said that a disputed debt arises when the parties agreed on the price or the (liquidated) tax, but then argued about their fairness and then settled. In the case of litigation, the parties considered an agreement to accept a fixed amount as payment for the amount owed.