EstatePass
ContractsContract_essentialsHARD

James and Linda enter into a written agreement in California where James will sell Linda his rental property for $680,000. The agreement contains all essential terms but neither party has yet performed. James receives a higher offer and wants to back out. He argues the contract lacks consideration because Linda has not yet paid anything. Under California law, is James correct?

Correct Answer

B) No, because Linda's promise to pay the purchase price constitutes valid consideration under California law

Under California Civil Code §1605-1615, consideration can be a promise, act, or forbearance. In a bilateral real estate contract, Linda's promise to pay $680,000 in exchange for James's promise to convey title constitutes valid mutual consideration. Actual payment is not required at the time of contract formation.

Answer Options
A
Yes, because no money has changed hands and consideration requires actual payment
B
No, because Linda's promise to pay the purchase price constitutes valid consideration under California law
C
Yes, because earnest money must be deposited within 3 business days for the contract to be binding
D
No, but only if Linda deposits the earnest money within 24 hours of James's attempted revocation

Why This Is the Correct Answer

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Deep Analysis of This Contracts Question

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Background Knowledge for Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis
Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Real World Application in Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Related Topics & Key Terms

Key Terms:

considerationmutual_promisesbilateral_contractCivil_Code_1605
Was this explanation helpful?

More Contracts Questions

People Also Study

Contracts Questions

Practice More Questions

Access 2,000+ practice questions and pass your real estate exam.

Start Practicing