zhensley wrote:A contract, generally, is formed when one party makes an offer. This offer is, generally, to perform some action or to make some promise.
Once the offer is accepted, it is a contract (if there is consideration).
It's not that it's promise + consideration. The promise can be consideration.
Suppose that I promise to do X (pay you $100) and you say "I accept".
ok, superstar, let's break it down.
"[An] offer is, generally, to perform some action or to make some promise."
Therefore, a promise to pay $100 is an offer.
"A contract, generally, is formed when one party makes an offer."
Thus, the offer to pay $100 forms a contract.
"Once the offer is accepted, it is a contract (if there is consideration)" + "The promise can be consideration."
So, because the promise is consideration and the offer is accepted, there is a contract. And all because you offered me $100 and I said "I accept."
I don't know why you're looking for a fight. Do you really not have enough to do? I'll say it again, because, apparently, you didn't read what I just posted.
Once someone makes an offer, then that's the start of contract formation. In order for an honest-to-God contract to exist, the offer must be accepted. And then as I put in parentheses "If there is consideration".
So, if I make an offer that is supported by consideration and and you make an acceptance supported by consideration, then we have an honest-to-God contract.
Now, as I said before the example of 'I offer to pay you $100' is a bit simplistic, but that's because I bracketed things that I wasn't talking about. Of course, the offer has to be an offer to make a promise for a promise or to perform for a promise, etc. But I wasn't talking about that. Just like I wasn't talking about the legality of the things promised, etc. Nor did I talk about possible terminations of offers, or promissory estoppel or anything else that I wasn't talking about. In every day conversation, you bracket things that aren't being disputed at the moment.
As I've stated before, my only concern was to clarify an earlier comment that made it seems like consideration was something in addition to a promise. That is, for my offer to be supported by consideration, then I needed to make a promise plus something else. The promise is my consideration. That's what a bilateral contract is. I make a promise in exchange for a promise from you. These promises are our consideration.
Once it became clear to me that you got hung up (apparently) on the fact that I didn't include the promise in exchange for something else, I brought up several examples: nomination consideration is one of them. I offer to promise to pay you $1 plus other good and valuable considerations if you promise to sell me your house. You accept by giving me this promise. Your acceptance is supported by consideration because your promise is your consideration. My offer is not supported by consideration, because the courts determined that nominal consideration (like paying $1 for a house) is not kosher, and so my promise to pay $1 can not function as consideration.
So, yes, if I simply say, "I'll give you $100" and you say "I agree" the fact that I didn't make my offer in exchange for something means there is no contract because there was no proper offer. But since that wasn't being disputed, that was irrelevant for my post. I wasn't making any point about that. I was simply making the point (which should have been covered within the first few weeks of your class) that a promise can function as valuable consideration, and you don't need a promise PLUS some other consideration to make your offer (or your acceptance) supported by consideration.