After reading the case Culbertson verse Brodsky, I believe that Brodsky did not give valid consideration that makes Culbertson’s promise enforceable. Culbertson and Brodsky had signed an option contract. According to Wikipedia, an option contract is promise which meets the requirements for the formation of a contract and limits the promisor's power to revoke an offer (paragraph 1). In other words, the contract must be made with the interest of both parties, and their contract was not. It was strictly in the interest of “protecting” Brodsky. The contract stated that Brodsky is to give the bank a check for $5,000 for “earnest money” to hold the land for up to six months. However, the bank was not to cash the check unless, he agreed to purchase the land. By allowing Brodsky to do so, this meant that Culbertson had to take the land off the market causing him to miss out on potential buyers if Brodsky decided that he did not want the land after he had ran his necessary test on it. It also, meant that Brodsky was able to get a “free” six month look at the land at the expense of Culbertson because Brodsky would have not loss any money if he chose not to purchase the land.
Brodsky argued that the option contract was in good faith. Though the contract was made in good faith, it was made in personal satisfaction for Brodsky not Culbertson. Yes, Brodsky agreed that if the test showed the land would work he would purchase, but what if it did not work? Brodsky did not take Culbertson into consideration when making the contract. If he did, he would have at least allowed Culbertson to a certain percentage on the earnest money for accommodating his needs while checking the land out. Therefore, because the entire contract was in the interest of Brodsky and Culbertson, I feel that if Culbertson wanted to back out of the contract he has
