In a contract where a homeowner hires a landscaper for $10,000 upon completion of specified projects, the landscaper completes the work but the homeowner later refuses payment because a tree was not trimmed. The landscaper then demands $10,500 to finish the missing task, and the homeowner agrees. After completion, the homeowner pays $10,000 and refuses the extra $500. The landscaper sues for breach. Is the landscaper likely to succeed?

• A. Yes, because the landscaper would have to forego other work to trim the tree for the extra pay.
• B. Yes, if the homeowner agreed to the higher price in exchange for the extra work.
• C. No, because there was no consideration for the promise to pay $10,500.
• D. No, unless there was an unforeseen circumstance that would excuse performance.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that contract modifications require new consideration. In a modification, the parties must exchange something of value beyond what was originally promised.

Here, finishing the tree trimming was part of the landscaper’s duties under the original agreement. The homeowner’s offer to pay more to induce the completion isn’t supported by new consideration because it’s money for performing something the landscaper was already obliged to do. Without new consideration, the promise to pay an extra $500 isn’t enforceable as a modification. So, even though the tree was eventually trimmed, there’s no valid basis to compel payment of the additional amount; the homeowner’s obligation remains the original $10,000 for performance of the specified projects. If there were truly new work or unforeseen circumstances creating new value, the analysis could differ, but under these facts there’s no enforceable basis for the extra payment.