Consideration Forum
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Consideration
I have heard conflicting stances on what constitutes consideration. I heard just about anything on minimal value is valid consideration and the value of it means squat. I have also heard if the consideration is too deflated in value then the courts can reject it. Can anyone advise which is correct?
- Champion of the Sun
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:23 pm
Re: Consideration
Value is irrelevant as long as it was bargained for. Check the Batsakis case.Extension_Cord wrote:I have heard conflicting stances on what constitutes consideration. I heard just about anything on minimal value is valid consideration and the value of it means squat. I have also heard if the consideration is too deflated in value then the courts can reject it. Can anyone advise which is correct?
- weee
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:34 pm
Re: Consideration
Whatever your casebook + Professor says it is.
- Champion of the Sun
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:23 pm
Re: Consideration
Value is irrelevant as long as it was bargained for. Check the Batsakis case.[/quote]
That's exactly what my casebook and professor say it is.weee wrote:Whatever your casebook + Professor says it is.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am
Re: Consideration
read e&e or Chirelstein’s Contracts .. easy understanding .
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Consideration
We are just about to cover consideration, so this is me re-enforcing my understanding of the consideration after 3 cases.
"A valuable consideration, in the senss of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other." Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hamer-sidway.html
Yes, money value may mean squat
"A valuable consideration, in the senss of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other." Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hamer-sidway.html
Yes, money value may mean squat
But if money is used to bargain for money, it may not be a consideration. See http://www.lawnix.com/cases/schnell-nell.htmlChampion of the Sun wrote: Value is irrelevant as long as it was bargained for. Check the Batsakis case.
- Redzo
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:27 pm
Re: Consideration
Generally, courts have a policy of not inquiring as to the adequacy of consideration. It is not the court's business to make sure that every exchange is "fair." As long as it believes that both sides bargained in good faith, the court will not be concerned with evaluating the consideration for a promise.
However, if the court believes that the consideration is a sham, merely nominal, they have the right to invalidate it.
However, if the court believes that the consideration is a sham, merely nominal, they have the right to invalidate it.
-
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:33 am
Re: Consideration
Redzo wrote:Generally, courts have a policy of not inquiring as to the adequacy of consideration. It is not the court's business to make sure that every exchange is "fair." As long as it believes that both sides bargained in good faith, the court will not be concerned with evaluating the consideration for a promise.
However, if the court believes that the consideration is a sham, merely nominal, they have the right to invalidate it.
Right. This idea of consideration for consideration's sake is also referred to as pretextual consideration or "consideration as a pretense". Courts held in Dougherty v. Salt that nothing can be consideration that isn't regarded as such by both parties. So even writing down "This peppercorn is hereby consideration for the promise" wouldn't satisfy the doctrine of consideration...because it isn't actually bargained for or sought--its merely imposed as a superficial device in attempts to validate the K.