1464-Eight, Ltd. v. Joppich
In 1464-Eight, Ltd. v. Joppich, 154 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2004), the petitioners argued that "the respondent's offer to sell real property should be binding as an option contract because the offer was in writing and signed by the respondent, acknowledged the receipt of a nominal consideration of ten dollars, and proposed an exchange on fair terms within a reasonable time." Joppich, 154 S.W.3d at 102.
These arguments were directed to the requirements listed in section 87(1)(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.
Joppich responded that the option contract was unenforceable because the petitioners never paid the nominal consideration recited.
The Texas Supreme Court followed section 87(1)(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts only in agreeing that when an option contract contains a recital that some nominal sum constitutes consideration for the option, the contract is enforceable despite the failure to pay the sum recited. Id. at 108-110.