Bono v. McCutcheon
159 Ohio App. 3d 571, 2005 Ohio 299, 824 N.E.2d 1013 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is supported by valid consideration, even if no money is exchanged, when the parties engage in a bargained-for exchange of promises that confer a benefit to the promisor, such as the promise to provide a puppy from a future litter.
Facts:
- On August 29, 2002, Gina Bono and Matthew McCutcheon entered into a written contract for a 'show potential' whippet puppy named Doozie.
- The contract did not state a monetary sale price for the puppy.
- Under the contract, Bono agreed to keep Doozie in good condition, show her at events, and breed her.
- The agreement required Bono to give McCutcheon the second pick of Doozie's first litter of puppies.
- The agreement also gave McCutcheon the right to take Doozie for an entire litter at his own expense.
- McCutcheon gave possession of Doozie to Bono upon making the agreement.
- Sometime later, McCutcheon regained possession of Doozie and refused to return her to Bono.
- Bono alleged that Matthew’s mother, Beth McCutcheon, induced him to withhold possession of the dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Gina Bono filed a complaint against Matthew and Beth McCutcheon in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), alleging breach of contract and other torts.
- The McCutcheons filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the contract lacked consideration because no sale price was included.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Bono filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court granted.
- Upon reconsideration, the trial court again granted the motion to dismiss, finding no consideration had been paid and that conditions of a sale had not been met.
- Gina Bono (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a written agreement for the transfer of a show dog fail for lack of consideration where no money is paid, but the recipient promises to care for the dog, show it, and give the original owner the second pick of the dog's first litter?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolff, Judge.
No. The agreement does not fail for lack of consideration because the mutual promises constituted a bargained-for exchange. Consideration does not need to be monetary; it can consist of a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. Bono's promise to provide McCutcheon with the second pick of Doozie's first litter was a benefit to McCutcheon that was bargained for in exchange for Doozie. This exchange of a present puppy for the promise of a future puppy is sufficient consideration. The other 'conditions' in the contract were not conditions precedent to the formation of the contract, but rather ongoing terms of the agreement, performance of which began when Bono took possession. Therefore, the complaint sufficiently alleged a valid contract.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the fundamental contract law principle that consideration need not be monetary and that courts will not inquire into its adequacy. The decision clarifies that a promise for a future benefit, particularly in specialized contexts like the breeding of show animals, constitutes valid, bargained-for consideration. This precedent is significant for agreements where value is exchanged through services, future rights, or non-cash assets. It reinforces that as long as there is a bargained-for exchange that confers a benefit or detriment, a contract is enforceable, preventing parties from escaping obligations by arguing a non-cash deal was merely a gratuitous promise.
