Over the course of 14 years, Peter Dementas helped Jack Tallas with numerous personal and business chores. Two months before his death, Tallas dictated a memorandum to Dementas, in Greek, stating:

Two months before his death, Tallas dictated a memorandum to Dementas, in Greek, stating:

"PETER K. DEMENTAS, is my best friend I have in this country and since he came to the United States he treats me like a father and I think of him as my own son. He takes me in his car groceryshopping. He drives me to the doctor and also takes me every week to Bingham to pick up my mail, collect the rents and manage my properties. For all the services Peter has given me all these years, I owe to him the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars.) I will shortly change my will to include him as my heir."

Explanation:

The memorandum was signed by Tallas. Dementas was not included in the will since Tallas did not  alter it to include him.

That made Dementas to sue on the promise that was contained in the memorandum.

Peter Dementas helped Jack Tallas with numerous personal and business chores towards the end of his life. Two months before his death, Tallas dictated a memorandum to Dementas, in Greek, stating: PETER K. DEMENTAS is my best friend I have in this country, ... he treats me like a father and I think of him as my own son. ...For all the services Peter has given me all these years, I owe to him the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars). I will shortly change my will to include him as my heir. Tallas signed the memorandum, but he did not in fact alter his will to include Dementas.

This was a real case. The Utah appeals court would rule?

There was no consideration to support Tallas's promise

Explanation:

Consideration in law of contract is considered as the benefit that each party to a contract gets or expects to get from the contractual deal.

In other words, it is often consist of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to not to perform an act that one is legally entitled to do.

Hence, in this case, the Utah appeals court would rule: There was no consideration to support Tallas's promise because, the promise Tallas made has no string attached, as his promise was one sided. The services Dementas rendered was not based on the fact that he will be placed as a hier to Tallas will, but rather a help done at his own will, because he wished to help not as a consideration to a contract.