David Braka purchased traveler's emergency protection before embarking on his extended around-the-world honeymoon. The agreement between Braka and TAI provided, among other benefits, $ 1,000,000 coverage in the event of emergency medical evacuation. On or about July 31, 2001, plaintiff and his wife were seriously injured in a car accident while vacationing in Fiji. Upon learning of the accident, Braka’s parents flew to Fiji. After his parents arrived, there was a determination made that Braka was not receiving adequate medical treatment and needed transport via air ambulance back to the United States for treatment. His parents paid for the transportation at a cost of approximately $350,000. A few months after the accident, Braka wrote a letter to his father stating his intention to repay the monies his father advanced on his behalf. To formalize this promise, Braka requested in the letter that his father sign same. Thereafter, Braka submitted a claim for reimbursement of his travel expenses. TAI denied the claim and Braka filed suit.
TIA argue that because Braka's parents paid this obligation, he has no damages and, thus cannot maintain this suit. Specifically, TIA contend that the letter that Braka wrote to his father does not constitute an enforceable note and, as such, Braka has no obligation to repay his father so they have not obligation.
How would you rule on Braka’s claim and why?
I am having a lot of trouble and am in desperate need of help.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Dismiss...........retrial.........judicial.............
I think that the main issue here is whether the essential elements of a contract are in place between Braka and his father, and I would say that they are not.
The reason I take this view is because of the time lapse between the father paying the money and the son vowing to pay it back. Consideration, which is the promise that each party brings to a contract, cannot be 'past'. Consideration must be executory or executed but not past. Executory consideration would be when a promise to do something in the future is made in return for another promise of something to be done in the future. This was not the case here, the father paid the money with no return promise. Executed consideration is when a promise is made in return for a promise to be made in the future. Again this was not the case because Braka made no return promise at the time his father paid the money.
His father's consideration happened three months before Braka provided any return consideration and therefore it does not constitute a contract. There is an exception to the 'past consideration' rule but again it wouldn't apply in this case. For past consideration to be deemed valid it has to be a promise performed at the request of the promisor, Braka did not promise anything at the time of the payment, or it has to be clearly understood that the promisee would be rewarded for performance of the act, again Braka made no return promise at the time of the payment.
TIA are correct in stating that the note from Braka to his father is not enforceable, and as such they have no obligation to compensate him.