An executed contract is a contract that has been fully performed by both parties, meaning the terms of the contract have been completely fulfilled. Once all parties sign the contract and the transaction is closed, the contract is considered executed.

1. Executed Contract
BY
Akshitha Reddy
13BSUHH010129
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129

2. Executed Contract
Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a
contract as an agreement enforceable by law.
Executed Contract : It is a contract that has been fully performed
by both parties. In other words, a contract whose terms have been
completely fulfilled. Once all parties sign the contract and the
transaction is closed, the contract is considered to be an executed
contract.
Akshitha Reddy
13BSUHH010129
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129

3. Case 1: Batsakis v. Demotsis, 226 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949).
Facts:
• Batsakis (P) and Demotsis (D) executed an agreement in 1942 in which Demotsis
received $2000 dollars from Batsakis and agreed to repay it with 8% interest per
year when she was able. Demotsis in fact only received 500,000 drachmae valued
at approximately U.S. $25. When the agreement was executed both of the parties
were citizens of and resided in Greece and the agreement was executed in Greece
during the German occupation in World War II. Batsakis filed suit to recover
principal and interest according to the agreement.
• Demotsis defended by claiming that the agreement was not an enforceable
contract for failure of consideration because the original loan of 500,000 drachmae
was only worth U.S. $25 at the time the agreement was executed. Demotsis owned
property in the U.S. at the time but did not have access to it because of the war.
She alleged that Batsakis knew of her financial distress and desire to return to the
United States at the time and testified that she received 500,000 drachmae from
him.
• The trial court entered judgment in favor of Batsakis for a total of $1163.83 of
which $750 was for principal and the remainder for interest. Batsakis appealed.
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129

4. Ruling:
No. Mere inadequacy of consideration does not render a contract
unenforceable.
The defendant received what she contracted for by under the terms of the
agreement according to her own testimony. The court did find however
that the trial court should have entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff
for the full $2000 plus 8% interest per year from April 2, 1942 according
to the terms of the agreement.
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129

5. Case 2: Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co., 438 A.2d 1091, 1094 (R.I. 1982)
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129
Facts:
• Hayes (P) worked for Plantations Steel Co. (D) from 1947 until 1972. After
announcing his retirement, Hayes discussed a pension plan with an officer
and stockholder of Plantations Steel one week before his retirement date.
The pension was based solely on the promise by an officer of the
corporation that Hayes would be taken care of and no formal contract was
executed.
•The defendant ceased paying the pension after three years and Hayes
filed a complaint for breach of contract. At trial the judge entered judgment
for the plaintiff and ruled that he was entitled to receive the payments.
Plantations Steel appealed.

6. Ruling:
• Yes. A promise must induce reasonable reliance upon it in order for
promissory estoppel to apply. The defendant’s promise was given as a
token of appreciation and without consideration from the plaintiff. The
promise did not induce reliance by Hayes because he had decided to
retire from his employment before any promise that he would receive a
pension was made.
•The promise did not induce his action or forbearance and Plantations
Steel’s promise did not shape his thinking.
Akshitha Reddy 13BSUHH010129