Answer:
The correct option is C. Yes, because the debtor incurred a different obligation than he already had.
Explanation:
Note: This question is not complete as the options are omitted. The question is therefore completed before answering the question by providing the options as follows:
A. No, because the debtor incurred no additional detriment that would serve as consideration for the new agreement.
B. Yes, because it would have cost the creditor $1,200 to purchase the entertainment system himself.
C. Yes, because the debtor incurred a different obligation than he already had.
D. Yes, because the new agreement between the debtor and the creditor is enforceable with or without
Explanation of the answer is now provided as follows.
It is possible to enforce the two parties' new agreement as an accord.
An accord can be described as an agreement in which one party to an existing contract agrees to accept some other, different performance from the other party in lieu of the performance that the other party is obligated to provide. In principle, an agreement must be backed by payment, but the consideration can be less than the amount agreed upon in the preceding contract if it is of a different character or the claim is to be paid to a third party. The responsibility of the debtor to supply the creditor with a new entertainment system was enough fresh consideration to constitute a legal agreement in this case.
When a party's responsibility is modified in some way, as the debtor's duty was in this case, the preceding legal duty rule does not apply. It makes no difference whether the creditor's benefit in the accord arrangement is equal to the original debt's worth; courts will find appropriate consideration if the consideration is fresh or different in any way. The difference in the debtor's obligation, that is, payment is in the form of an entertainment system rather than cash) is enough to sustain the accord arrangement, regardless of how much the entertainment system would have cost the creditor.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not apply because the original agreement was not for the sale of goods. The underlying commitment in this case was to pay a debt secured by a promissory note.
Therefore, the correct option is C. Yes, because the debtor incurred a different obligation than he already had.
