Browning And Johnson: Case: Cook V. Johnson

ROBERT C. BROWNING V. ARTHUR JOHNSON

Project Type: Re writing of judgement

Submitted to: Prof . Surabhi Rajapal
Faculty, Contract law

Submitted by: Shubhank Singh
Semester II Year I
Roll no. 2015- 110

NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

FACTS OF THE CASE:
Browning and Johnson went into an agreement of offer whereby Browning was to offer his practice and hardware to Johnson. Both sides and their lawyers trusted the agreement made to be totally legitimate and enforceable. Prior to the agreement's compelling date, Browning altered his opinion about offering and looked to be discharged from the commitments he had attempted. Johnson, at initially, challenged. Later, be that as it may, after Browning's guarantee to pay Johnson $40,000
See Cook v. Johnson, 37 Wn.2d 19, 221 P.2d 525 (1950). A one-sided contract is one in which a guarantee is given in return for a demonstration or avoidance. Here, Browning gave Johnson a guarantee to pay $40,000 in return for Johnson's demonstration of surrendering the agreement of offer. Adequacy of consideration in one-sided contracts is talked about by Professor Williston in his treatise, Contracts § 102 (3d ed. 1957). There he demonstrates that the prerequisite of adequate consideration to bolster a guarantee is met by a hindrance brought about by the promisee (Johnson) or an advantage got by the promisor (Browning) at the solicitation of the promisor. "That impairment endured by the promisee at the promisor's solicitation and as the cost for the guarantee is adequate, however the promisor is not profited, is very much settled." Williston, supra. This has been the law in Washington for more than 50 years. Harris v. Johnson, 75 Wash. 291, 294, 134 Pac. 1048 (1913). The inquiry then turns into the way of a burden. Impediment is characterized by Williston as the surrendering of "something which quickly earlier thereto the promisee was advantaged to hold, or doing or avoiding accomplishing something which he was then favored not to do, or not to cease from doing." Williston, supra, § 102A. We have as of now had event to quote this definition with endorsement. Luther v. National Bank of Commerce, *149 2 Wn.2d 470, 483, 98 P.2d 667 (1940). We
Graff v. Geisel, 39 Wn.2d 131, 138, 234 P.2d 884 (1951). In the moment case, the protest charged absence of consideration in the agreement of offer and subsequently absence of consideration in the agreement of cancelation. It looked for rescission of the agreement of cancelation and compensation. The announcement of certainties uncovers that the case was attempted on a hypothesis of absence of consideration. The main affirmation which appeared to establish a framework for the shared slip-up contention was inspired from one of Browning's witnesses by Johnson's direction. Carmelizing's advice totally overlooked it on re-coordinate and did not seek after a comparable line of inquiries with any of the witnesses. At long last, the oral choice of the trial judge demonstrated that he considered the case as continuing alone upon a hypothesis of absence of consideration as a ground for