Is there consideration for the following promises (Yes/No)?
Explain your answer using speech act theory.

1. Mrs. Hammerhead's cat is stuck in a tree and won't come down.
Just then a couple, arm-in-arm, walk by and Mrs. H says to the man:
"If you get Pussycat for me, I'll give you $37.50."
The man effortlessly climbs the tree and returns the cat to its owner.
Mrs. H. remarks on how well he climbs trees.
The man replies: "Oh, I'm a fireman for the city and I've gone after a lot of cats."

Is there consideration for Mrs. H's promise?
Yes. The fireman is off duty, so he is not already obligated to get the cat. This satisfies the nonexpectancy
condition in speech act theory; legally, then the fireman has no pre-existing duty to rescue the cat.

2. Susie Q, a student in Ling. 105, got 24 pts. (out of 25) on the
midterm exam, turned in all her homework asignments, handed in her
3-page paper on the last day of class, and took the final exam on
Monday (as scheduled).
She left a postcard with Prof. Schane for him to mail her the
course grade.
That evening at dinner, Mrs. Q, her mother, says:
"Susie, darling, if you get an A in Ling. 105, I'll take you to
Nordie's and buy you a new winter hat and coat."
Three days later her postcard arrives in the mail from her
efficient professor.
Much to Susie's and her mother's surprise and delight,
Susie got an A+ in Ling. 105.

Is there consideration for Mrs. Q's promise?
No. Susie has done all the work in her course prior to her mother's making of the promise. Suzie has to wait to see what her grade will be. There is nothing further she can do that will count as a future act (a necessary ingredient for valid consideration).
This fails the benefit clause.

3. Mr. & Mrs. American have booked a hotel room for $75 in San Francisco.
When they arrive at the hotel the check-in clerk says:
"If you attend a time-share presentation in our giant ballroom, we
will give you your room for half price."

Is there consideration for the clerk's promise?
Yes. Attending the time-share talk is not something the couple agreed to do when
they first made their hotel reservation. Agreeing to attend the talk would constitute
"new" consideration. A good answer would say that for the couple to attend the time-share
talk was not expected for the old agreement for the price of the room. This satisfies the speech-act
condition of nonexpectancy; in the law the couple did not have a pre-existing duty to attend the talk.

4. Mrs. Vandersnoot, prim and proper, a socialite and dowager,
has a favorite grandson who is a confirmed bachelor.
She says to him:
"If you get married, and for as long as you stay married, I'll give
you a generous allowance of $6000 a month."
Georgio, the grandson, and a young woman acquaintance get married.
Although they don't have sex together they live in the same
household and appear at social events as husband and wife.

Is there consideration for grandma's promise?
Yes. Georgio is not obligated to get married. He agrees to do this in exchange for the monthly income.
There is nothing in the agreement requiring the couple to have sex, which is a red herring. This satisfies all of
Searle's felicity conditions: Futurity: The couple will get married in the future; (2) It is not expected that
they would get married; and (3) Grandma truly wants them to get married, and they truly want to in exchange for the $6000
a month income.

5. Jake, a former New Yorker and a prototypical bachelor (no relation to Georgio), lives in
Waikiki. With the holidays approaching he sends greetings to his friends
back in the snow and the slush.
He writes on his cards:
"If you come to Hawaii, you won't have to stay in a hotel, but you
can stay with me in my plush bachelor pad."

Is there consideration for Jake's promise?
No. Jake's offer to his friends is a gratuitous promise with a condition precedent ("if you come to Hawaii").
His friends need to get to Hawaii in order to get the benefit
of his gift; he is not bargaining for their trip to Hawaii.