Tabor is a buyer of file cabinets manufactured by Martin. Martin's contract with Tabor calls for delivery of fifty file cabinets at $40 per cabinet in five equal installments. After delivery of two installments (twenty cabinets), Martin informs Tabor that because of inflation, Martin is losing money. Martin will promise to deliver the remaining thirty cabinets only if Tabor will pay $50 per cabinet. Tabor agrees in writing to do so. Discuss whether Martin can legally collect the additional $100 on delivery to Tabor of the next installment of ten cabinets.

It seems to be a bilateral contract among Tabor and Martin with valid contract, as both parties have the capacity to fulfill duties. Martin delivers the cabinets and Tabor pays for them upon delivery, using the installment method as a promise while the second installment is done. This way, the bilateral contract was interrupted and needed consideration due to the incapacity of Martin to perform correctly from the agreement.

Martin cannot legally collect $100 from delivering the remaining 10 cabinets on the nest installment. There is one way that he could have collect the money legally, but he made a wrong reasoning to Tabor with regards to the additional payment: will promise to deliver the remaining thirty cabinets only if Tabor will pay $50 per cabinet. This means that Martin had violated the original agreement. Tracing the contract, the deficit of $10 per cabinet would mean incapacity of one party to fulfill the agreement. Also, the modification of agreement gave Tabor no choice to have his cabinets delivered due to Tabor's statement only if Tabor will pay $50 per cabinet