Another Word for Legal Sufficiency

Not all promises are promises to do something. Sometimes it`s an illusory promiseThe celebrity actually doesn`t hold any considerations, as in “I`ll cancel your house in June if I feel like it,” where the terms of the contract really force the celebrity not to give up anything, not to suffer any disadvantage. For example, Lydia offers to pay Juliet $10 to mow Lydia`s lawn. Juliette promises to mow the lawn if she feels like it. Can Juliette enforce the contract? No, because Juliette has not suffered any prejudice to the law; His promise is illusory, because by doing nothing, it always falls into the literal wording of his promise. The doctrine that such agreements are unenforceable is sometimes called the mutual commitment rule: if one party has not made a binding commitment, the other party is not bound either. So if A signs a contract to hire B for one year at a price of $6,000 per month, reserves the right to fire B at any time (a “cancellation option” clause), and B agrees to work for a year, A really didn`t promise anything; A is not bound by the agreement, and neither is B. Let`s take a look at some examples of the principle of agreement and satisfaction. The dispute that leads to the agreement of the parties to agree through agreement and satisfaction can occur in several typical ways: when there is an unliquidated debt; a disputed debt; a “full payment cheque” for less than the creditor requires; unforeseen difficulties leading to a modification or novation of the contract; or a settlement between creditors. But there is never an obligation – and there can be no real legal challenge – when a person promises a benefit, when someone does what they are already obliged to do, or when a person promises someone an advantage not to do what the promisor is already not allowed to do, or where you make an illusory promise. Britannica English: Translation of sufficience for Arabic speakers It is true that [the franchisee] does not promise in so many words that he will make reasonable efforts to place the defendant`s notes and market their designs.

However, we believe that such a promise should be rightly implied. The law passed its primitive stage of formalism, when the exact word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was deadly. It is now taking a broader view. A promise may be missing, and yet all writing can be “instinct with commitment,” imperfectly expressed. His commitment to pay the defendant half of the profits and revenues of the exclusive agency and to report on a monthly basis was a promise to generate profits and revenue with reasonable efforts. Otis F. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 118 N.E. 214 (1917).

Unforeseen difficultyProblems in the performance of a contract so important that it justifies the assumption that the contract will be modified. The creation after the conclusion of a contract can also be resolved by agreement and satisfaction. Difficulties that no one could have foreseen can sometimes serve as a catalyst for another promise that may seem ill-considered, but that the courts will nevertheless enforce. Suppose Peter hires Jerry to build a house for $390,000. While digging, Peter unexpectedly discovers quicksand, the removal of which will cost an additional $10,000. To make sure Peter doesn`t hesitate, Jerry promises to pay Peter $10,000 more than originally agreed. But when the house is finished, Jerry breaks his promise. Is Jerry responsible? Logically, maybe not: Pierre did not suffer a legal disadvantage in exchange for the $10,000; He had already concluded a contract with the construction of the house. But most courts would allow Peter to recover from the theory that the original contract was terminated or modified, either by mutual agreement or by an implied condition that the original contract would be terminated if unforeseen difficulties arose. In short, the courts will apply the mutual recognition of the parties that unforeseen conditions made the old contract abusive.

The parties have either amended their original contract (which requires common law review) or abandoned their original contract and entered into a new one (NovationA new contract that replaces an old one, or a new part to a contract that replaces a previous part). Not suitable for an agreement through an agreement and satisfaction is the situation in which a party has an already existing obligation and is offered an advantage to fulfill that obligation. If the only consideration offered to the promisor is an action or promise to act to fulfill an already existing obligation, there is no valid contract. As stated in Denney v. Reppert (Article 11.4.2 “Consideration: Pre-existing Obligation”), the promisor does not suffer a legal disadvantage if he promises to do what he is already obliged to do. If a person is promised an advantage of not doing what they are not already allowed to do, there is no quid pro quo. David is sixteen years old; His uncle promises him $50 if he abstains from smoking. The promise is unenforceable: legally, David must already quit smoking, so he promised not to give up anything to which he was legally entitled. As already mentioned, the difficulty arises when it is not clear whether a person has a pre-existing obligation or if such unforeseen difficulties have arisen that justify the recognition that the parties have modified the contract or entered into a novation. What happens if Peter insists that he receive an additional payment to remove a wheelbarrow full of quicksand from the excavation? This is certainly not an “unforeseen difficulty”. How much quicksand is enough? Since everyone has the legal right to take legal action if they feel hurt, a promise not to go to court is a sufficient consideration to support a promise of payment or performance.

In Dedeaux v. Young, Dedeaux purchased a property and promised to make certain payments to Young, the broker. Dedeaux vs Jung, 170 So.2d 561 (1965). But Dedeaux did not make these payments afterwards, and Young threatened to sue; If he had filed documents with the court, the transfer of ownership could have been blocked. To prevent Young from suing, Dedeaux promised to pay a 5% commission if Young remained out of court. Dedeaux later objected to the payment on the grounds that he had never made such a promise and that even if he had, there would have been no contract because there was no consideration from Young. The court disagreed, noting that the evidence supported Young`s assertion that Dedeaux had indeed made such a promise, and upheld Young`s claim to the commission because “an application for waiver of the exercise of a right was generally accepted as a sufficient consideration to support a contract.” If Young had no reason to sue — for example, if he had threatened to sue a stranger, or if it could be proven that Dedeaux originally had no obligation to him — then there would have been no consideration because Young would not have waived a legal claim. A promise to waive a lawsuit in exchange for resolving a dispute is called a not to sue obligationAn agreement not to take legal action. (Alliance is another word for the agreement). To repay his $8,000 liquidated debt to the surgeon, the patient sends a cheque for $6,000 labeled “full payment.” The surgeon collects it. There is no dispute. Can the surgeon sue for the remaining $2,000? This may seem like an agreement: by cashing the check, the surgeon seems to agree with the patient to accept the full payment of $6,000.

But there is a lack of consideration. Since the surgeon owes more than the facial amount of the check, he does not cause the patient any legal disadvantage by accepting the check. If the rule were different, debtors could easily induce creditors in a hurry to accept less than the amount due by immediately presenting money. The key to the applicability of a “full payment” legend is the nature of the debt. If it is not liquidated or if there is a dispute, “full payment” can be used as consent and satisfaction if it is written on a cheque accepted for payment by a creditor. But if the debt is liquidated and undisputed, there is no consideration if the check is for a lower amount. (However, it can be argued that if the review is considered an agreement to amend a sales contract, no consideration is required under Article 2-209 of the Unified Commercial Code (UCC).) How to use a word that (literally) leads to something. As proposed in section 11.1 “General Perspective on Consideration”, the contract requires the exchange of legal disadvantage and legal advantage. When this happens, it is said that consideration is legally sufficient, something valuable enough to form consideration.