What constitutes a legal decision?

[quincy]

.. It would appear to meet the basic requirements for a contract after all.

Agreed. As proposed, it appears to be a basic contract. It appears that it was a basic contract when EFW and his ex mutually agreed orally to split the costs of college 1/3 to 2/3.

Although (potentially) enforceable at its most basic, it is best if there is a written document that fully and clearly defines the intent of the parties so there is no misunderstanding later as to what exactly is included in the 1/3 and 2/3. This becomes more important when all of the various and assorted college bills need to be paid.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Although (potentially) enforceable at its most basic, it is best if there is a written document that fully and clearly defines the intent of the parties so there is no misunderstanding later as to what exactly is included in the 1/3 and 2/3. This becomes more important when all of the various and assorted college bills need to be paid.

Yes, any significant contract should be in writing. Verbal contracts run the risk that later on the two parties have a different memory of what the deal was, leading to (potentially expensive) conflict. And consulting a lawyer may be helpful since the lawyer may spot things in the deal that might be a problem, whether it's vague terms, missing provisions that ought to be included, or whatever. For example, exactly what costs are going to split? How long will this cost sharing go on — will it include paying for extra years if the kid drags out college to 5, 6, or more years? Will it obligate paying for graduate school? Should there be a cap on how much will be subject to the cost sharing? When and how will the payments be made? There are a lot of things that should be thought about and addressed that many nonlawyers don't think about when they come up with the basic agreement.

 

[Zigner]

And consulting a lawyer may be helpful since the lawyer may spot things in the deal that might be a problem, whether it's vague terms, missing provisions that ought to be included, or whatever. For example, exactly what costs are going to split? How long will this cost sharing go on — will it include paying for extra years if the kid drags out college to 5, 6, or more years? Will it obligate paying for graduate school? Should there be a cap on how much will be subject to the cost sharing? When and how will the payments be made? There are a lot of things that should be thought about and addressed that many nonlawyers don't think about when they come up with the basic agreement.

THAT - that's exactly what I mean. If there were assumptions made by the parties that were disparate enough, then this would not meet the requirements for a contract because there was no actual meeting of the minds.

 

[Taxing Matters]

THAT - that's exactly what I mean. If there were assumptions made by the parties that were disparate enough, then this would not meet the requirements for a contract because there was no actual meeting of the minds.

Just because the agreement is simple and does not address all the things that as a lawyer I would think of to address doesn't make it unenforceable. The courts typically take the approach that if the most basic elements of the deal are there it is enforceable. For example, in a sales of goods contract if the parties have at least clearly agreed on the price the court likely will enforce the contract even though it would have been better for the parties to have included a whole lot more in the contract. But that simple agreement may be enforceable it may end up causing one or both parties problems later when factors they had not considered occur and the contract gets enforced in a way that they might not like. And that's why getting the help of a lawyer for this may be a good idea.

 

[Zigner]

Just because the agreement is simple and does not address all the things that as a lawyer I would think of to address doesn't make it unenforceable. The courts typically take the approach that if the most basic elements of the deal are there it is enforceable. For example, in a sales of goods contract if the parties have at least clearly agreed on the price the court likely will enforce the contract even though it would have been better for the parties to have included a whole lot more in the contract. But that simple agreement may be enforceable it may end up causing one or both parties problems later when factors they had not considered occur and the contract gets enforced in a way that they might not like. And that's why getting the help of a lawyer for this may be a good idea.

Fair enough

 

[Litigator22]

Agreed. As proposed, it appears to be a basic contract. It appears that it was a basic contract when EFW and his ex mutually agreed orally to split the costs of college 1/3 to 2/3.

Although (potentially) enforceable at its most basic, it is best if there is a written document that fully and clearly defines the intent of the parties so there is no misunderstanding later as to what exactly is included in the 1/3 and 2/3. This becomes more important when all of the various and assorted college bills need to be paid.

It seems to me Q, that you may have alone touched on the essential legal issue here, meaning "certainty of contract".

Perhaps knowledgeable contributors might provide their views as to the enforceability of such a proposed writing * giving attention to the principal of contract law requiring certainty of terms.

That is to say, would the wording "kid's college costs" (or similar expressions without limitation or nature of the costs, state or out-of-state tuition, etc., etc.,) be sufficient to bind the father to his proposed promise? Can there be mutual assent or a meeting of minds when the terms lack reasonable certainty?

Section 90 Restatement of Contracts 2nd would have the father bound to his proposed promise to absorb 1/3 when it would "induce action" on the part of the promisee mother, but only of a "definite and substantial character." Which brings me to full circle:

Are terms "kid's college costs" sufficiently definite to form an enforceable contract between the parents? I think not. And if it is not binding between them , then it would not be enforceable by the proposed beneficiaries. (See: Restatement of Contracts 2nd Section 309)

 

[Taxing Matters]

Are terms "kid's college costs" sufficiently definite to form an enforceable contract between the parents? I think not.

I think that it may be. After all the term is reasonably definite; tuition, books, and college fees would certainly be included by pretty much anyone's definition of "college costs". And there are extrinsic measures that a court could rely upon to flesh out what the parties likely intended. It is certainly not so vague and uncertain to say with certainty that a court would find that it does not meet what a contract requires.