Susan, who just acted a job in Europe, decided to sell his house and his car. After some discussion Chris signs a valid written contract for the purchase of the house for $200,000 and the car for $4000. Before either the house or the car is conveyed to Maude some problem develop.
While Chris is measuring the basement rooms for her rugs she discovers water leakage into the basement. Susan and Chris never discussed the subject of water leakage previously and Susan claims she never had this problem during her three years in the house. Chris points to the newly applied paint, which he claims that Susan has employed to cover the leak. Susan denies this. Chris indicates his unwillingness to proceed with the purchase because she can’t put fine rugs and furniture in a basement that leaks. After much discussion, Susan and Chris agree on a new deal and sign a new contract that is identical in all other respects for the sale of the house for $190,000.
A few days later, Chris calls Susan on the phone very upset about the purchase of the car. On Sunday he had been seen advertising for similar cars for a good deal less money and she discovered that he mistakenly agreed to pay Susan $500 over the blue book price of the car. After a long conversation, Susan agrees to pay Chris’s demand to lower the price to $35000 and the parties execute a written, signed agreement to this effect.
At the time conveyance of the car and house, Susan demands the original prices and refuses to convey either for less money.
Advice Chris on his legal rights with respect to both contracts. In doing so be sure to address these questions. Assume that the house and car are 2 separate contracts.
a. If Susan had not lowered the price on the house, what legal arguments could Chris have made to get out of the contract? Explain fully.
Is there any consideration present to support Susan’s promise to lower the price of the house and the car? Explain fully.