Final answer:
Jill's contract to transfer all her assets to the nurse, made out of a moral obligation after her recovery from a comatose state, lacks typical consideration but might still be enforceable by the court under exceptional circumstances.
Step-by-step explanation:
After an accident on a state highway left Jill in a comatose state for nearly a month, she became deeply indebted to the nurse who cared for her during this period. Following her recovery, Jill decided to transfer all her assets to the nurse, feeling morally obliged to fulfill a debt of gratitude. The concept presented in this scenario is one of a contract lacking consideration. Consideration, in legal terms, refers to something of value that is promised to another when forming a contract. In certain cases, like Jill's, a contract made out of a sense of moral duty can sometimes be enforced, despite lacking typical consideration, when it meets specific exceptions recognized legally.
Contracts based on moral obligation might not have the usual form of consideration but can still be enforceable under exceptional circumstances. This could be analogous to the principle where someone like Sharon Kowalski, who was incapacitated after an accident, had a property agreement enforced despite legal barriers due to the strong moral commitment she had made with her partner, Karen Thompson, as evidenced by them naming each other as policy beneficiaries.
In the pursuance of fulfilling what feels like a moral obligation, the person transferring the assets might find that the court enforces their contract based on the unique circumstances, especially if the person benefited has reasonable expectations of receiving the assets based on the debtor's promises, much like what was observed in the Kowalski and Thompson case. However, it is important to note that the standard for such agreements to be upheld in court is higher than for typical contracts because they lack the usual consideration element.