Jones advanced the argument that the trial court was in error when it granted Adams’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was invalid for lack of consideration. Subject to certain limited exceptions, a lack of consideration renders unenforceable any contract for the sale of goods under the laws of California.
Because Adams raised the defense in his motion for summary judgment, Jones was required to show the existence of an appropriate exception to this defense to avoid dismissal by the court. In his appeal, Jones argued that the contract was enforceable because consideration was present. The court held that his argument was without merit and the grant of Adams’ motion for summary judgment was proper.