Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The traditional notion that courts won't look into the adequacy of consideration, an ancient notion in the English common law, doesn't square with the benefit-detriment theory (in which courts are implicitly analyzing if the parties are receiving a sufficient benefit) but does square with the bargain theory (in which only the subjective ...
Consideration need not be adequate. Consideration need not necessarily be equal in value to something given. So long as consideration exists, the courts are not concerned as to adequacy, provided it is for some value. Additionally, under the Indian Contract Act 1872, any consideration is invalid if it is: Forbidden by law [a]
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts (but not for special contracts by deed).The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States.
The situation is different under contracts within civil law jurisdictions because such nominal consideration can be categorised as a disguised gift. [4] The remainder of this section is a U.S. perception, not English. However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party. [5]
Love and affection, for example, would not constitute sufficient consideration, but a penny would. However, sufficient consideration that is grossly inadequate may be deemed unconscionable, discussed below. Moreover, things that ordinarily constitute sufficient consideration may be deemed insufficient when they are being exchanged for fungible ...
The leading case is Stilk v Myrick (1809), [3] where a captain promised 8 crew the wages of two deserters provided the remainders completed the voyage. The shipowner refused to honour the agreement; the court deemed the eight crew were unable to enforce the deal as they had an existing obligation to sail the ship and meet "ordinary foreseeable emergencies".
The former "Fox & Friends" co-host is considered one of the most vulnerable of Trump's Cabinet nominees since former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., withdrew from consideration shortly after the ...
The law codified the Illinois common law conditions that the non-compete agreement must (1) be reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the employer, (2) be ancillary to a relationship or valid contract, and (3) be reasonably supported by adequate consideration. [36] [37]