Case Questions

1. Was the contract between Joel King and Barber bilateral or unilateral?

2. What was bargained for and given in exchange by each party?

Brown v. King 869 N.E.2d 35 Court of Appeals of Ohio December 29, 2006

Mark P. Painter, Judge.

This case involves neighbors and the ownership of a 10-foot-by-80-foot strip of land between their proper- ties. The trial court granted summary judgment, hold- ing that there was no consideration to support a contract requiring transfer of the strip.... II. Consideration In their first assignment of error, the Kings argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Barber and Brown.... The elements of a contract include an offer, an acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained-for legal benefit or detriment), a manifes- tation of mutual assent, and legality of object and of consideration.... The issue in the present case is whether there was consideration for the contract. The Ohio Supreme Court has long recognized the rule that a contract is not binding unless it is supported by consideration. Consideration may consist of either a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promi- sor. A benefit may consist of some right, interest, or profit accruing to the promisor, while a detriment may consist of some forbearance, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the promisee....

In the present case, the contract between Joel King and Barber was supported by consideration. Joel King had a valid contract with Barber to purchase the LeBlond parcel. The estate signed both offers and accepted $1,000 in earnest money. Thus, the contract where Joel King agreed to release all his rights to the LeBlond property in exchange for Barber's transferring a strip of land at the rear of the parcel was valid. The detriment to the promisee (Joel King) was his surren- der of his property rights secured by the purchase contract. The surrendering of these rights in exchange for the rear strip of land was a contract supported by consideration.

And when "a contract is clear and unambiguous, then its interpretation is a matter of law and there is no issue of fact to be determined."...

There were no material facts in dispute. The Kings contracted for the rear strip of land and provided consideration by surrendering their remaining prop- erty rights in the LeBlond parcel. Thus, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Barber and Brown. Summary judgment should have been granted to the Kings because the contract provided them with the property rights to that rear strip. The Kings' first assignment of error is sustained.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Barber and Brown and remand this case so the trial court can enter summary judgment in favor of Joel and Sandra King.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.