Ad
related to: consideration contract case law examples in pennsylvania form 40 n
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act.
Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino, 109 F. Supp. 2d 324 (2000) was a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, holding that participation in a promotional contest is sufficient consideration for a valid contract. [1]
Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 431 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognizing a freedom of contract between employers and their employees that state legislators were powerless to regulate. Specifically, this case struck down a state law requiring wages to be paid in cash. Cited approvingly in Lochner v.
The district court denied Netscape's motion to dismiss the case. The court held that a contract becomes binding "when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is exchanged." Since the plaintiffs were not given sufficient opportunity to review the arbitration clause in the SmartDownload EULA, Netscape could not compel that technique for ...
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to contract law, concerning consideration and estoppel. Specifically it concerned the effectiveness of "no oral variation" clauses, which provide that any amendments or waiver in relation to the ...
De Cicco v. Schweizer, [a] 117 N.E. 807 (N.Y. 1917), is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration.The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C.
Amway Corp., [2] and consistent with a Ninth Circuit case, Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America [3] the court found that Blockbuster's arbitration provision was illusory and unenforceable, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from "unilaterally changing any part of the contract", "at ...
(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36; 24 Eng Law & Eq 434: ... White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 is an English contract law case, concerning the scope of consideration in English law.