Bono v. McCutcheon - 2005-Ohio-299, 159 Ohio App. 3d 571, 824 N.E.2d 1013

Rule:

In Ohio, a contract consists of an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Without consideration, there can be no contract. Under Ohio law, consideration consists of either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. To constitute consideration, the benefit or detriment must be bargained for. Something is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise. The benefit or detriment does not need to be great. In fact, a benefit need not even be actual, as in the nature of a profit, or be as economically valuable as whatever the promisor promises in exchange for the benefit; it need only be something regarded by the promisor as beneficial enough to induce his promise. Generally, therefore, a court will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration once it is found to exist.

Facts:

Under the contract in question, defendants gave plaintiff a show dog. Plaintiff agreed to care for the dog, show the dog to increase its value, and eventually breed the dog. Defendants then would take a second pick of the dog's litter. It was undisputed that plaintiff did not pay money for the dog. Sometime thereafter, defendants regained possession and has refused to return the dog to plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff brought suit against defendant, alleging breach of contract and conversion and seeking damages, specific performance, and replevin. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the alleged contract lacked consideration. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6). Plaintiff appealed the judgment.

Issue:

Did the contract lack consideration, thereby justifying the grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The judgment was reversed and the action was remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that plaintiff gave consideration for the dog when she agreed to provide defendants with a puppy. In essence, the parties agreed on an exchange, the dog for "puppy to be named later." Therefore, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding that the contract lacked consideration. The appellate court further held that plaintiff stated valid causes of action for conversion, tortious interference with a contract, and that she validly sought replevin and specific performance. Plaintiff's allegations that defendants gave her the dog and then took the dog back and wrongfully refused to return the dog supported the various claims.