Case Brief Title: Court: Citati Maughs v Porter Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 157 Va.

415, 161 S.E. 242 Consumer Defendant/Respon dent Auction Consideration BargainProm v Gift Year 1931 Decided: on: Plaintiff/Appe

llant Procedural History:

Plaintiff filed a notice of motion for $461, the defendant filed a general demurrer, which was sustained. Plaintiff has been allowed a writ of error.

Relevant Facts: A newspaper ad specifically stated, Every white person over 16 has an equal chance to win a New Model Ford, regardless of buying or bidding for the 50 residence lots at the auction Plaintiff arrived at an auction of 50 beautiful residence lot, hoping to be included in a lottery to win a free New Model Ford. She was picked as the winner and she paid the auctioneer his $3.00 for it. The defendant placed the order with the automobile make but refused to pay for it upon delivery. Plaintiff sues defendant for not honoring the contract and also sues defendant for the price of the car, $461.00

Issue: Rule:

Whether the alleged offer to make the gift can be enforced as supported by a sufficient consideration. And, assuming the consideration is sufficient, Whether the transaction constitutes a lottery, which is prohibited by Constitution, 60, and by statute code, 4693, 4694.

1. A simple gift promise is not enforceable, unless delivery has already taken place, in which case, the promisor cannot legally ask for it back. 2. A bargain for promise is enforceable if there is a valid consideration. 3. Can the prize of the new Model Ford be classified as lottery? Which is prohibited.

Case Brief Reasoning / Analysis: To Rule #1 above, The intention to give must be accompanied by a delivery, and the delivery must be made with an intention to give. Otherwise, there is only an intention or promise to give, which is not enforceable. Since the plaintiff has yet to receive the item, the contract is not enforceable. To Rule #2 above. The motive of the defendant was to obviously get as many people to attend the auction as possible, hence, the plaintiff showing up at the auction shows sufficient consideration since the motive of the defendant was served. Meaning defendant received value from the promise of the free Model Ford. Plaintiff showing up to the auction, whether she intends to bid or not is of no consequences, it is up to the defendant to turn her into a bidder, but the fact that she showed up, benefitted the defendants motive, hence, sufficient consideration. To Rule #3 above. The courts viewed the transaction as a lottery, hence, not an enforceable contract.

Holding / Conclusion: Although there was sufficient consideration to make the contract enforceable, it was ruled unenforceable because it was found to be a lottery. Judgment is Affirmed with the lower court to sustain the demurrer.

Disposition: Case Point: Evaluation: Synthesis Definitions: