## Facts

- A brewing company retained an architect to design brewery buildings and supervise construction to completion.
- The architect’s original duties did not include supervising or installing machinery.
- During construction, the company awarded a refrigeration-plant contract to a supplier opposed by the architect, who had an ownership interest in a competing refrigeration company.
- After learning of the award, the architect withdrew his plans, removed his superintendent from the site, and stated he would not continue with the brewery project.
- Because the company was under time pressure and replacing the architect would cause substantial delay, the company’s president promised to pay the architect an additional 5% commission on the cost of the refrigeration plant if the architect resumed work.
- The architect resumed and completed performance of his original architectural and supervisory obligations.
- After completion, the architect’s estate sued to recover the additional 5% based solely on the later promise.

## Issues

1. Whether a promise to pay additional compensation to induce a party to resume performance of an existing contractual obligation is supported by consideration.
2. Whether the parties’ conduct and agreement constituted a rescission of the original contract and formation of a new contract supported by fresh consideration.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the award of the additional 5% commission.
- The court held the promise of additional compensation was void for want of consideration because it was given only to obtain performance already owed under the original contract.
- The court rejected the argument that the original contract was abrogated and replaced by a new contract differing only by increased compensation.

## Legal Principles

- A promise of additional payment for performance of a duty already required by an existing contract is unenforceable absent new consideration.
- A party’s resumption of the same performance after an unjustified stoppage is not new consideration; it is merely performance of a pre-existing legal duty.
- A valid substitution of contracts requires a genuine mutual rescission and a new bargain, not a price increase obtained solely through one party’s wrongful refusal to perform.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a mid-performance modification that increased compensation without any new consideration, treating the architect’s resumed work as performance he was already bound to render under the original agreement.


Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co., 103 Mo. 578, 15 S.W. 844 (Mo. 1891)