Enforceability questions often ask whether a promise was supported by a bargained-for exchange or whether reliance supplies an alternative basis for enforcement.
Practice in Testify →Ask what each party promised or gave in exchange for the other’s commitment. If the alleged consideration predates the promise or adds no new legal detriment, identify the defect. Then separately test whether a reliance theory can support enforcement when consideration is missing.
A promise can be economically valuable without being consideration if it was not bargained for. Students also overuse promissory estoppel whenever consideration is weak; reliance requires its own elements and does not simply erase every formation problem.
For each promise, draw an arrow showing what induced what. If the arrows do not reflect an exchange, consider whether another doctrine—such as reliance, modification rules, or a statutory exception—changes the result.
Law school exams often reward recognizing multiple enforceability theories. Analyze consideration first, then reliance or restitution only if the facts support them.
In bar review, pair this topic with modification, third-party beneficiaries, and damages. A promise can be enforceable under one theory yet produce a different remedy than you initially expect.