Connection lost
Server error
Robert G. Watkins & Son, Inc. v. Carrig Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A contractor encountered unexpected rock and refused to continue work. The owner orally promised to pay more. The court enforced the new promise, holding that the owner’s agreement constituted a valid waiver of his rights under the original contract, thus creating an enforceable modification.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a significant exception to the pre-existing duty rule, allowing for enforceable contract modifications without new consideration where one party voluntarily relinquishes a right under the original agreement in response to unforeseen circumstances.
Robert G. Watkins & Son, Inc. v. Carrig Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff, Robert G. Watkins & Son, Inc., entered into a written contract with defendant Carrig to excavate a cellar for a fixed price. The contract broadly required the plaintiff to remove “all material” from the site, with no provisions for unexpected conditions. During excavation, the plaintiff encountered a substantial amount of solid rock, a condition not anticipated by either party, which made performance significantly more burdensome. The plaintiff informed the defendant that it would not complete the work at the original contract price. To ensure the project continued without delay, the defendant orally promised to pay a higher, “special price” for the rock excavation, which was a fair and reasonable rate for such work. Relying on this new promise, the plaintiff completed the entire excavation. The defendant subsequently paid only the original contract price, refusing to honor the oral modification. The plaintiff sued to recover the additional amount promised for the rock excavation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a party’s subsequent promise to pay additional compensation for performance that the other party was already obligated to render under an existing contract enforceable when the promisor voluntarily agrees to the modification in response to unforeseen difficulties?
Yes. The defendant’s oral promise to pay more for the rock excavation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a party’s subsequent promise to pay additional compensation for performance that the other party was already obligated to render under an existing contract enforceable when the promisor voluntarily agrees to the modification in response to unforeseen difficulties?
Conclusion
This case provides a significant equitable exception to the pre-existing duty rule, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam
Legal Rule
A modification to an executory contract is enforceable, even without new consideration, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliq
Legal Analysis
The court acknowledged the traditional pre-existing duty rule, which posits that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A promise to pay more for a pre-existing duty is enforceable