. Adequate consideration constitutes “any benefit to a promisor or any detriment to a promisee.” Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011) (en banc) (citations omitted) (discouraging courts from assessing the adequacy of consideration absent “extreme circumstances”). Further, the continuation of work constitutes cognizable consideration under Colorado law unless the employee's continued employment fulfills preexisting contractual obligations. E.g., Kuta v. Joint Dist. No. 50(J) of Cntys.

" Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011) (en banc) (citing W. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Denver v. Nat'l Homes Corp., 167 Colo. 93, 103 (1968)). The Colorado Supreme Court, which this Court is bound to follow when interpreting Colorado state law, has determined that a court evaluating a disputed contract "need only find some consideration, regardless of its relative value" to support the enforceability of that contract.

In Colorado, an agreement is valid and enforceable only if it is supported by consideration. Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011). The standard for consideration is not high: “any benefit to a promisor or any detriment to a promisee at the time of the contract-no matter how slight-constitutes adequate consideration.

For example, some of the cases discuss whether continued employment is sufficient consideration to support a binding contract, providing little to no analysis as to whether continued employment may constitute acceptance of an offer. See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1062-63 (Colo. 2011); Grady v.DIRECTV Customer Servs. Inc., No. 14-cv-03474-CMA-NYW, 2015 WL 3619337, at *4 (D. Colo. June 10, 2015); Levine v. Vitamin Cottage Nat. Food Markets, Inc., No. 20-cv-00261-STV, 2021 WL 4439800, at *10-12 (D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2021). Moreover, unlike the instant matter, these cited cases included either an agreement signed by the employee or an express statement informing the employee that his or her continued employment was conditioned on the employee's assent to the employment agreement.

Consideration may be defined as "any benefit to a promisor or any detriment to a promisee at the time of the contract - no matter how slight." Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011); see also Colo. Jury Instr., Civil § 30:7 (2017) (defining consideration as "a benefit received or something given up as agreed upon between the parties"). The requirements of "[b]enefit and detriment have a technical meaning."

“[A]ny benefit to a promisor or any detriment to a promisee at the time of the contract—no matter how slight—constitutes adequate consideration.” Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo.2011).

See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011) (“Consideration may take the form of forbearance by one party to refrain from doing something that it is legally entitled to do.”) (citing Troutman v. Webster, 82 Colo. 93, 97 (Colo. 1927); Int'l Paper Co v. Cohen, 126 P.3d 222, 225 (Colo.App. 2005); Jones v. Jones, 1 Colo.App. 28, 32 (Colo.App. 1891)). In the Contracts, Mr. Lowe “acknowledges” that he personally owes each plaintiff a sum of money, but each plaintiff agrees that Mr. Lowe has until October 1, 2022 to pay the debt before plaintiff considers him to be in default.

Grady v. DirecTV Customer Servs., Inc., No. 14-cv-03474-CMA-NYW, 2015 WL 3619337, at *4 (D. Colo. Jun. 10, 2015); Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1062-63 (Colo. 2011) (finding an at-will employee who is offered a new condition of employment accepts that offer through continuing the employment relationship, and receives consideration in the continued employment relationship).

An oral contract, like a written contract, requires consideration, or any benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee at the time of formation.See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 2.55 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2, 011). Sea Eagle claims that the consideration for this agreement was allowing Texas Quality to use the fishing vendor that it wanted.

[#1 at ¶ 141] But this assertion is legally deficient, as the Colorado Supreme Court has found that nondisclosure and noncompete agreements are not inconsistent with at-will employment. See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011) (holding that "an employer's forbearance of the right to terminate an existing at-will employee constitutes adequate consideration to support a noncompetition agreement" signed after the employee began working for the employer). Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as to the Complaint's claim that the Confidentiality Agreement created a definite term employment contract which Defendant breached, and that claim is DISMISSED.