Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The main purpose of the shift from benefit-detriment to bargain theory is to avoid inquiries into whether consideration is adequate. For example, if a person promised you their car for $1.00 because they needed to get rid of it, then the $1.00 might seem adequate.
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.
Consideration need not be of the same value as the other party's promise. For example, a peppercorn in contract law describes a very small and inadequate consideration. Consideration must be legal i.e., not prohibited by the law. The insufficiency of past consideration is related to the pre-existing duty rule.
An adequate remedy or adequate remedy at law is part of a legal remedy (either court-ordered or negotiated between the litigants) which the court deems satisfactory, without recourse to an equitable remedy. [1] [2] This consideration expresses to the court whether money should be awarded or a court order should be decreed. [1] "
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and ...
Amid controversy surrounding the carnivore diet, researcher Nick Norwitz recently released a video in which he debunks eight myths surrounding the meat-heavy eating plan.
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]