Fiege v. Boehm

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1956 · Contracts

Contractsconsiderationforbearanceinvalid claimgood faith beliefconsiderationforbearancebastardy

Facts

The plaintiff testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her, that she became pregnant, and that he agreed to pay her medical and related expenses, lost wages, and $10 per week for child support if she would refrain from bringing bastardy proceedings. The defendant denied intercourse and denied making the agreement, but admitted paying her $480; his father testified that the defendant said he wanted the matter kept quiet and would take care of it. After blood tests later indicated the defendant could not be the father, he stopped paying, and the plaintiff then filed a bastardy charge. The defendant was acquitted in the criminal court based on testimony about the blood tests, but the plaintiff brought this contract action to recover the unpaid balance.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's promise to forbear from instituting bastardy proceedings supplied valid consideration for the defendant's promise to pay, even though blood tests later indicated he could not have been the child's father and he was acquitted of bastardy. More generally, the issue was whether forbearance to assert a claim later shown invalid is sufficient consideration when the claimant asserted it in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

Rule

The surrender of, or forbearance to assert, an invalid claim is sufficient consideration only if the claimant had both an honest, bona fide belief in the claim's possible validity and a reasonable basis for that belief. Forbearance is insufficient if the claim is so lacking in legal or factual foundation that its assertion is incompatible with honesty and a reasonable degree of intelligence. Thus, a promise not to prosecute a claim can support a contract when the forbearing party honestly intended to pursue litigation that was not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful and believed the claim to be well founded.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nina Patel told Evan Mercer that he was responsible for damage to her apartment after a kitchen flood, based on what she had personally seen and on statements from the building superintendent. Evan denied fault, but promised to pay Nina $8,000 if she would not file suit. Months later, an engineering report showed the leak actually came from a hidden defect in the building’s pipes, not from Evan’s unit.

If Nina sues to enforce Evan’s promise, which is the strongest argument that her forbearance supplied consideration?

Explanation. The majority adopted a combined subjective and objective test: surrender or forbearance of an invalid claim is sufficient consideration only if the claimant had an honest, bona fide belief in the claim’s possible validity and a reasonable basis for that belief. Actual validity is immaterial. Thus, Nina can enforce the promise if her threatened suit was asserted in good faith and was reasonably grounded when she forbore.