Week 3-Discussion Thread-Consideration and the Moral Value of the Promise
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
404
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by BaronDanger7242
Discussion Thread: Consideration and the Moral Value of the Promise
For reasons herein and others, I do think that the law should be more reflective of moral values, but in the area of promises made without any consideration only if such promises induce detrimental reliance. Some of my reasons justifying such follow.
First, God requires that people be truthful in all regards, such that a person’s “yes” means “yes” and “no” means “no” (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Matthew 5:37). In addition, God
states that “[a] son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son” (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Ezekiel 18:19-20). The original Hebrew word ba’avon (ן ֺ֣ו ֲע ַבּ) in such verse is translated to English as “iniquity” and it also means and includes debts, sins, punishments, and guilt, such that if a son incurs debt the father is not obligated to pay
it merely because he is the father. Thus, under God’s law, the father in Mills v. Wyman
, 20 Mass. 207, 3 Pick. 207 (Mass. 1825), was not obligated to pay any debts his son incurred from being sick and dying. However, God also commands that people fulfill their promises, regardless of whether the promisee gave consideration in exchange for such: If a man makes a vow to the LORD or swears an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word; he must do everything he has promised (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Numbers 30:2).
Such applies to vows made to God and also to pledges/promises made by humans to other humans. Thus, God’s law provides that people should mean what they say, say what is true, and that fathers not be obliged to pay the debts of their sons, but that all promises made be fulfilled, whether they involve moral values such as those in Wyman
, supra
, or involve any other values.
1
1
The only exception in God’s eyes to fulfilling a promise is if that promise involves committing a sin or helping others to sin (e.g., a person promising to help facilitate lying, adultery, homosexuality, crime, or other sinful conduct). Breaking a promise to sin is acceptable and required under God’s law to avoid sinning.
Second, the law should especially be more reflective of the moral value of promises freely made without any consideration, as occurred in Wyman,
if the promise(s) induces detrimental reliance on the part of the promisee
. In Wyman
, there was apparently no such detrimental reliance,
2
and in such circumstances the core holding of Wyman
should be followed:
A deliberate promise, in writing, made freely and without any mistake, one which may lead the party to whom it is made into contracts and expenses, cannot be broken without a
violation of moral duty. But if there was nothing paid or promised for it, the law, perhaps wisely, leaves the execution of it to the conscience of him who makes it. Wyman
, 20 Mass. at 211. However, where a promise without consideration induces detrimental reliance, the promise should be enforced and the law should reflect such. The reason for enforcing promises without consideration in the context of detrimental reliance is because “actual harm may sometimes consist of detrimental reliance” and courts can and should afford equitable relief to redress such. CIGNA Corp. v. Amara
, 563 U.S. 421, 444, 131 S. Ct. 1866, 1881, 179 L. Ed. 2d 843, 859 (2011). Some courts have even held that equitable relief exists, in the context of certain kinds of detrimental reliance, “to make a promise binding, under certain circumstances, without consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given in exchange.” Baskin Distrib. v. Pittway Corp.
, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429, *8 & n.10 (9th Cir. 1998).
3
2
In Wyman
, the caretaker cared for the adult son on a good Samaritan basis, without any prospect, hope, promise, or assurance of being paid for such. Only after the son died and the father learned of such, the father honorably promised by letter to pay the caretaking expenses without having received any consideration in exchange for such promise. There was arguably no detrimental reliance by the caretaker because the father’s promise was made after
the caretaker already cared for his son, after his son had died, and after the caretaker thus expected no compensation for caring for the son. To the extent detrimental reliance occurred after the promise was made, the opinion in Wyman
is silent as to any facts evidencing such.
3
Moreover, an estoppel may arise “from the making of a promise…without consideration, if…a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice.” T-Zone Health Inc. v. SouthStar Cap. LLC
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139606, *20 (4th Cir. 2023)(discussing South Carolina law). Indeed, the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel is based on “the principle that a promise without consideration
may nonetheless be enforced to prevent injustice; the doctrine thus traditionally applies as an exception to the requirement of consideration in the formation of a contract.” Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. United Healthcare
Third, trying to make the law more reflective of moral values is to essentially try to legislate or judicially decree morality, which can be done and does have enormous social and individual benefits. While some people have said you can't legislate morality, it needs to be said that legislation is always based on someone's morality. It is based on someone's notion of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair. The claim that we cannot legislate morality is a deception intended to exclude from the democratic process those citizens who frankly acknowledge that their
motivation is moral in nature. Commonwealth v. Wasson
, 842 S.W.2d 487, 511, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 140, *86-87 (Ky. 1992)(Wintersheimer, J., dissenting).
Law in Western Civilization is predicated upon biblical morality and commands of God (Zimmerman, 2005). The promotion of immorality, social decay, and anti-Christian views and practices in the U.S. over the past 75 years have been a result of people abandoning God’s morality, trying to untether U.S. law from biblical morality, and falsely asserting that morality cannot be legislated or judicially decreed. Morality can indeed be legislated, judicially decreed, and enforced, so that humans conduct themselves morally in their actions, inactions, and speech, including fulfillment of promises made without consideration.
4
For foregoing reasons, society and humanity would do well to obey God’s commands and
to incorporate and reinstate biblical morality into human law rather than trying to remove it from human law, including with regard to God’s command that people keep the promises they make, regardless of whether consideration was given to them for such, and especially if such promises induced detrimental reliance. Doing so will help to curtail people from making imprudent Ins. Co.
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33383, *24, (S.D. Fla. 2023).
4
Morality of the heart is a different matter. While a person can be forced to conduct themselves morally apropos their physical actions, inactions, speech, and conduct involving others, their hearts cannot be forced to be moral or to agree with such morality. That is where God and the Holy Spirit have jurisdiction to effectuate change in
the person to cleanse them of deception and sin and to give them a new heart that agrees with and appreciates such morality, if the person believes in and submits to the will of God by trusting in and obeying the Messiah.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
promises and from inducing others into detrimentally relying upon such. Moreover, having the law reflect moral values to enforce freely made promises could and would result in promoting an
awareness and sense of duty, honor, civility, and prudence in speech and writing, and would encourage people to freely fulfill moral obligations not out of compulsion by law, but out of honor and magnanimity, yet for those who refuse to fulfill such the law could compel them. After
all, “law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious” (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
References
Baskin Distrib. v. Pittway Corp.
, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429 (9th Cir. 1998)
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 444, 131 S. Ct. 1866, 179 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2011).
Commonwealth v. Wasson
, 842 S.W.2d 487, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 140 (Ky. 1992).
The Holy Bible:
Berean Standard Bible
. (2020). Biblehub.com. https://biblehub.com
(Original work published 2016).
T-Zone Health Inc. v. SouthStar Cap. LLC
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139606 (4th Cir. 2023).
Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33383 (S.D. Fla. 2023).
Zimmerman, A. (2005, August). The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
. Creation.com. Journal of Creation 19(2):67–73 (August 2005). Retrieved September 28, 2023, from https://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-
liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny
.