Final answer:
Consideration exists in this case, and promissory estoppel may come into play if Fred relied on Rachel's promise to his detriment.
Step-by-step explanation:
Consideration is an essential element in a contract. It refers to something of value exchanged between parties as a basis for making a promise. In this case, Fred saved Rachel's life, which can be seen as a valuable act. Rachel's promise to give Fred money every 2 weeks can be considered as consideration.
However, if Rachel later stopped making the payments, Fred may argue that promissory estoppel comes into play. Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going back on their promise if the other party has relied on that promise to their detriment. It holds a promise binding even without consideration if the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance.
In this case, Fred may argue that he relied on Rachel's promise and suffered a detriment (being disabled) as a result. If the court finds that the elements of promissory estoppel are met, Rachel may be held legally obligated to continue making the payments.
Consideration does exist in contracts, often as something of value exchanged between parties. In the given scenario, promissory estoppel may be applicable if Fred relied on Rachel's promise and suffered a detriment due to her stopping the payments.
In the scenario where Fred is suing Rachel due to her stopping the payments she promised, the concept of consideration does exist in contracts. Consideration refers to something of value that each party agrees to give to the other as part of a contract. In this case, Fred saving Rachel's life could be seen as past consideration, but usually, past consideration is not valid for the purposes of a new promise unless it is part of a debt or obligation recognized by both parties. Moreover, the principle of promissory estoppel may also come into play. Promissory estoppel occurs when one party makes a promise upon which the other party reasonably relies, and then suffers a detriment as a consequence of that reliance. If Fred relied on the promised payments and was disadvantaged when Rachel stopped making them, he might have a case under promissory estoppel, even if there was no contract in the legal sense.