To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Levine v. Blumenthal

Powered by
Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

The Defendant, Blumenthal (Defendant) asks to have a rent increase abated and the Plaintiff Levine, (Plaintiff) agreed orally.  Plaintiff sues for difference, due in the second year.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A preexisting duty cannot count as consideration for the purposes of contract formation. 

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The lessors had the right to repudiate it at any time and demand the full amount of rent provided for by the lease; but in so far as the oral agreement had become executed, as to the payments which had fallen due and had been paid and accepted in full as per the oral agreement, we think the rule invoked has no application.

View Full Point of Law

Defendant agreed to pay a certain amount of rent for two years, with an increase in the second year.  Defendant was unable to pay for the increase. It was found as a fact in district court that there was a verbal agreement to allow the defendants to pay the original year’s amount of rent for the second year. 


Can the promise to perform a preexisting duty count as consideration?


No. Affirmed. A promise to do what the promisor is already bound to do is an unreal consideration. A creditor’s mere fear that the debtor will fall into bankruptcy is not enough to form sufficient consideration.

Any consideration to perform the new undertaking is satisfactory consideration.

The fact the agreement has been executed by the payment and acceptance of the reduced rent, does not mean the substituted performance stands.


The court adopts the preexisting duty rule, which results in the promisor being bound to what he is already obligated to do, unless there is a new consideration to replace the prior agreement.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following