Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Illusory promises are so named because they merely hold the illusion of contract. For example, a promise of the form, "I will give you ten dollars if I feel like it," is purely illusory and will not be enforced as a contract. It is a general principle of contract law that courts should err on the side of enforcing contracts. [1]
2. A performance or return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise. 3. The performance may consist of an act other than a promise, or a forbearance, or the creation, modification, or destruction of a legal relation. [1]
For example, A receives Rs.50/- in return for which he promises to deliver certain goods to B. The money A receives is the present consideration. When consideration to one party to other is to pass subsequently to the maker of the contract, is said to be future consideration. For example. A promises to deliver certain goods to B after a week.
Put simply, "[t]he buyer under a requirements contract does not promise to buy as much as she desires to buy but, rather, to buy as much as she needs". [2] However, such a contract would likely be deemed illusory if the buyer reserved the right to buy from other parties. [3]
Essentially, once a promisee begins performance, an option contract is implicitly created between the promisor and the promisee. The promisor impliedly promises not to revoke the offer and the promisee impliedly promises to furnish complete performance, but as the name suggests, the promisee still retains the "option" of not completing ...
Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money, services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid pro quo to support their side of the bargain. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other. [a] If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a "bare promise" and is unenforceable.
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".
Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891), was a noted decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state), New York, United States.It is an important case in American contract law by establishing that forbearance of legal rights (voluntarily abstaining from one's legal rights) on promises of future benefit made by other parties can constitute valid ...