Dispute

Defendant, a fashion influencer, entered into an agreement with plaintiff under which he had exclusive rights to market her brand and she would receive half of all proceeds. When she violated the agreement, he sued; she countered by arguing that there was no consideration because plaintiff was not bound to do anything.

Rule of law

A promise lacking in an agreement but clearly implied by the intent of the parties and the context may be provided by the court.

Arguments

Defendant argued that because there was no requirement for plaintiff to use reasonable efforts to market her brand, the contract was invalid. Plaintiff argued that reasonable effort was implied and that the promise to pay half the profits and render accounts monthly was a thing of value suitable as consideration

Conclusion

The court reversed the appellate decision and granted judgment for plaintiff.