Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thus whether $1.00 is consideration does not depend on the benefit received but whether the $1.00 had actually been bargained for. In some [clarification needed] jurisdictions, contracts calling for such nominal or "peppercorn" consideration will be upheld unless a particular contract is deemed unconscionable.
The law of contracts varies from state to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law. The law governing transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide through widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code .
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]
Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]
If a contract has both an "honour clause" and a clause that attempts to exclude a court's jurisdiction (as in Rose & Frank v Crompton) [17] the court may apply the blue pencil rule, which strikes out the offending part. The court will then recognise the remainder, provided it still makes sense, and remains in accord with the parties' bargain.
The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test—whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clauses. Typically, non-severable contracts only require the substantial performance of a promise rather than the whole or complete performance of a promise to warrant payment.