A liquidated, undisputed debt of $1,000 was due on March 1. On March 15, the debtor promised to pay by December 1 if the creditor would refrain from suing. The creditor sues on April 1. Should the court grant the debtor’s motion to dismiss?

• A. No, because there was no consideration to support the creditor’s promise not to sue.
• B. Yes, because the debt is liquidated and undisputed.
• C. Yes, because forbearance to sue is sufficient consideration.
• D. No, because forbearance to sue is always consideration.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that forbearance to sue counts as consideration only when there is a genuine exchange in which one party gives up a legal right in return for something of value. Here, the debt is liquidated and undisputed, so there isn’t a dispute that the creditor is forgoing or any new benefit flowing to the debtor beyond the existing obligation. Because there is no new consideration supporting the creditor’s promise not to sue, the debtor’s promise to pay by December 1 is not enforceable as a modified agreement. Therefore, the court should not grant the debtor’s motion to dismiss; the creditor’s suit can proceed.

Briefly, the other options don’t fit: simply being liquidated and undisputed doesn’t create consideration for forbearance. Forbearance to sue is only valid consideration if there’s a bona fide dispute or some change in the legal relationship; it isn’t automatic. And “forbearance to sue is always/always sufficient” ignores the requirement for valid consideration and the preexisting-duty issue.