1. Does David have a case against his uncle? Can he get the $50,000 check? If so, describe the specific aspects of contract law that would allow him to collect.

David has a valid argument against his uncle. For a contract to be valid, it must first have an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The acceptance is found with "David, you did well in school. If you enroll in a full time college program for your Bachelor of Arts, I will give you a check for $50,000 on your graduation to get you started." Although the facts do not state that David verbally accepted his uncle's verbal offer, when David enrolled in school, he partially performed his part of the contract, thereby showing acceptance.

Consideration is the main issue here. Consideration requires some bargained for exchange that can be tested with the "But For" analysis. But for David's promise to his uncle, he was not legally required to enroll and graduate from college. Therefore, consideration David's half of the exchange was met (he was to receive 50,000 if he completed contract) (See Hamer v. Sidway, N.Y. Ct. App., 124 N.Y 538 (1891) which says any waiver of a legal right (in this case to not go to school) at the request of another is sufficient consideration for a promise. The uncle's detriment, however, is not clear.

David could however claim promissory estoppel. Promissory Estoppel can enforce a contract, which may be lacking in consideration, provided the promisor should reasonably expect that it will induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, and it does in fact cause such action or forbearance, and it is the only means of avoiding injustice. In this case, David's uncle could reasonably have believed that David would rely on such promise and take out $60,000 to pay for the rest of college. Further, David did rely on such promise and took out those student loans, and graduated college.

The last element of promissory estoppel is that enforcing such contract would be the only means of avoiding injustice. David did incur a substantial amount in student loans, relying on his uncle's $50,000 promise, so therefore, I believe he would succeed on a promissory estoppel claim.

2. From the uncle's point of view, what defenses would he allege if sued by David? Use specific points of law.

David's uncle will most likely argue that although he made the promise to David, there was no bargained for exchange to be sufficient consideration. He will most likely argue that he received no benefit from the consideration (some jurisdictions use a benefit/detriment test to determine consideration).

David's uncle may try to claim that he made a gratuitous promise, not a contract with David. Courts do not like to get involved in inter-family financial disputes and have ruled many to be mere promises of gratuitous intentions that cannot be enforced by the court.

3. Weighing the position in #1 from David's point of view and in#2 from the uncle's point of view, as judge how would you decide this if it were in your courtroom? What aspects of contract law seem most persuasive?

Weighing both arguments, I believe a judge will find in favor of David. Although there may not be sufficient consideration, as the uncle received no benefit from the transaction (aside from the pride he felt for his nephew), therefore, consideration may not be sufficient in court, depending on your jurisdiction.

However, David has a strong Promissory Estoppel claim. His uncle could have reasonably foreseen that finishing college would be a substantial cost to David. David, then did incur such a large financial burden in reliance on his uncle's promise to give him 50,000 upon graduation.

Weighing the policy behind each argument, I would rule as a judge that injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the contract, otherwise, David would be left with a substantial unexpected financial burden.