Consideration issues that is raised by the given exchange is explained below:
Person M's first promise to buy the beer is an unwarranted promise. He has received a ticket from G. The ticket indicates Person M to make a promise to buy the beer. Here, G has not committed forbearance when he agrees not to punch Person M, because he has no legal right to hit him.
Hence, Person M is under no contractual obligation to buy the beer. This is the consideration issues raised during the exchange.
In a noncompete agreement, an employee promises not to work for a competitor for some time after leaving the company. The employment contract does bind the employer in a new way. In the contract, employer implicitly promise continued employment. Courts have found that an implied promise to continue employment counts as consideration, whether the employee is at will or has a contract. The covenant is supported by adequate consideration.
Therefore, the correct option is (a)
Contracts must have a consideration for both the parties. If one side gets all the benefit and the other side gets nothing, then an agreement lacks consideration and is not an enforceable contract.
There are three rules of consideration:
1. Both parties must get something of measurable value from the contract.
2. A promise to give something of value counts as consideration.
3. The two parties must have bargained for whatever was exchanged and have agreed to a deal.
Therefore, the correct option is (d)