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.
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.
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.
The case held that standard clauses established by regulations may be considered as being in every Federal contract. Because the FAR is the law, and government contractors are presumed to be familiar with the FAR, a mandatory clause that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy will be incorporated into a ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania violated First Amendment rights of a Catholic foster care agency by refusing to renew the agency's contract unless it agreed to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that in order for a legal contract to be binding consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
The cases discussed are, Coggs v Barnard (1703) on bailment; Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) on the doctrine of consideration; Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts