Top Law Schools

Why? Because it'll be amusing to see how many variations of the same fundamental term are out there... "consideration" would be a good one too.

Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

What shock said.

shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

Wow, mine prefers "mutual manifestation of assent to an exchange between two or more parties that is also legally enforceable."

introversional wrote:

shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

Wow, mine prefers "mutual manifestation of assent to an exchange between two or more parties that is also legally enforceable."

That just seems a bit unnecessarily wordy to me.

I don't know and courts don't either

an agreement enforceable by law

Contract: a bargain for exchange which has consideration, manifestation of mutual assent and certainty of terms in which the parties are liable under the law.

Consideration: rendering performance or promise to perform.

Full disclosure: prof faps to the restatement.

A 1997 science-fiction movie starring Jodie Foster

My old Ks prof defines a contract as "A promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law provides remedy."

A non-tort liability.

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

An agreement with a legal effect.

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action.

No, because my tort professor defined tort as a non-contract liability. So I guess those are all torts.

ben4847 wrote:

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action.

No, because my tort professor defined tort as a non-contract liability. So I guess those are all torts.

oh dear

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:An agreement with a legal effect.

The title of the thread wasn't "Disagree with other's prof's definitions of contracts," but I'm going to anyway. This definition is also overly broad. It would include, for example, an enforceable agreement that nevertheless had legal effects. For example, an agreement to rob a bank is not a contract because it's unenforceable, but it nevertheless has the legal affect of exposing the counterparties to criminal liability. It's also overly narrow because it excludes nonagreements enforceable based on reliance, which are considered a part of modern contract law.

my contracts professor doesn't teach contracts. We do economics, graphs, formulas. We have his exam next week. We have not learned consideration.

ben4847 wrote:

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

I've already explained why your definition doesn't work. It's absurdly over broad. Your response, which I thought was a joke, was that a tort is noncontractual liability. Crimes are definitely not torts and a variety of other civil liability is almost certainly not tort liability.

As to contracts "implied in law," they arise out of implied promises, so they're not excluded from that definition.

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

I've already explained why your definition doesn't work. It's absurdly over broad. Your response, which I thought was a joke, was that a tort is noncontractual liability. Crimes are definitely not torts and a variety of other civil liability is almost certainly not tort liability.

As to contracts "implied in law," they arise out of implied promises, so they're not excluded from that definition.

I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.

ben4847 wrote:

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

Does that mean that replevin is a contract action in your "superior" definition? What about a child custody suit?

ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

5ky wrote:

ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, this.

ben4847 wrote:I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.

Crimes are not torts. Some crimes and torts share the same name. And some actions give rise to both criminal and tort liability, but crimes are not torts. Contracts "implied in law" are a legal fiction either way. It's no harder to "imagine" them as contracts than it is to imagine them as implied contracts.

Renzo wrote:

ben4847 wrote:

Bronte wrote:

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.

That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

Does that mean that replevin is a contract action in your "superior" definition? What about a child custody suit?

replevin is a contract in my definition. I quote the case of Sherwood v. Walker which begins "Replevin for a cow" (you may have read it in regard to mistake in contracts)
Child custody suit is also an action in contract, since you contractually bind yourself to the normal custody rules when having unprotected sex.