Sec 524

A promise for which no consideration has been given may be revoked before acceptance;1 but this contingency does not prevent a promise to sell certain goods, if ordered, from being a good consideration for a contract between the party so promising and the party ordering the goods.2 "The consideration for a promise may well be contingent, that is, it may consist in the doing something by the promisee which he need not do unless he chooses, but which being done by him the contract is complete and the promise binding."3 "Whether a continuing offer to supply to a particular party goods indefinitely for a particular period binds him unless the promisee agrees to depend on him exclusively, or there be an acceptance for specific goods, may be doubted.4 A guaranty, however, dependent on the employment of a particular person, would be good.5 - Contingent promises of this class may be retracted at any time until some act based on them is done by the other contracting party.6 - Any surrender of a right on the other side, no matter how slight, even though amounting only to an understanding that there shall be a suspension of inquiries elsewhere, will be a consideration for a promise to keep open an offer.7

1 See Lang. Sum. sec 89.

2 Supra, sec 514; Livingston v. Rogers, 1 Caines, 585; Keep v. Goodrich, 12 Johns. 397. As to conditional promises, see infra, sec 545 et seq.

3 Supra, sec 8 et seq. 4 Supra, sec 509.

5 Knapp, J., Crowell v. Osborne, 43 N. J. L. 335.

6 Supra, sec 31-2; and see to the effect that mutuality is essential, supra, sec 2.

7 Supra, sec 510.

8 Supra, sec 509.

9 Nerot v. Wallace, 3 T. R. 17; Has-lam v. Sherwood, 10 Bing. 540, are to be understood in the sense of the text.

10 Supra, sec 505; infra, sec 858.

Sec 525

A promise to support an illegitimate child in consideration of its surrender by its mother, and other forbearance on her part, will be sustained as made on sufficient consideration.8 Hence it has been held that a bond for an annuity by the father to the mother of illegitimate children conditioned on her not claiming their custody is good;1 and so where a distinct provision is made on consideration of the mother not proceeding against the father for affiliation.2 It is otherwise, however, when the consideration is past illicit intercourse.3

Promise though contingent may be a good consideration.

Promise to support of illegitimate child good when on good consideration.

1 Supra, sec 10.

2 See supra, sec 16; infra, sec 575 et seq.

3 Pollock (Wald's ed.), 160, citing Great N. R. R. v. Witham, L. R. 9 C. P. 16. To the point in the text Mr. Wald, in a learned note to Pollock, cites Cottage St. Ch. v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528; and see cases cited supra, sec 16; Turnpike Co. v. Coy, 13 Oh. St. 84; and see Babcock v. Wilson, 17 Me. 372; Appleton v. Chase, 19 Me. 74.

4 See Great N. R. R. v. Witham, ut supra; Thayer v. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508; Bailey v. Austrian, 19 Minn. 535, denying such liability in toto, and observations in Wald's Pollock, 160. As to continuous offer see supra, sec 9, 14; as to continuous considerations see supra, sec 515.

5 Newbury v. Armstrong, 6 Bing. 201; Kennaway v. Treleavan, 5 M. & W. 501.

6 Routledge v. Grant, 4 Bing. 660.

7 See supra, sec 13.

8 Jennings v. Brown, 9 M. & W. 496 Ridley v. Ridley, 11 Jurist, N. S. 475 Hammersley v. De Biel, 12 Cl. & F. 45 Alderson v. Maddison, L. R. 5 Ex. D 293; Holcome v. Stimpson, 8 Vt. 141 Howe v. Litchfield, 3 Allen, 443; Hook v. Pratt, 78 N. Y. 376; Sharp v. Teese, 4 Halst. 352; Wright v. Tinsley, 30 Mo. 396.