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.
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.
Thus in McGrath v Shah (1989) 57 P & CR 452, 459, John Chadwick QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) applied an entire agreement clause in a contract for the sale of land, where the clause served the important function of ensuring that the contract was not avoided under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous ...
On October 4, 1886, Associate Justice Isaac G. Gordon ruled on behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He held that if workplace rules were prominently posted, the iron mills' traditional use of the long ton definition could supersede state law in a contract between an employer and their employees. [2] Furthermore, Gordon held the state ...
Consideration may be past, present or future. Past consideration is not consideration according to English law. However it is a consideration as per Indian law. Example of past consideration is, A renders some service to B at latter's desire. After a month B promises to compensate A for service rendered to him earlier.
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 is an English contract law case, ... There is a consideration on one side, ... This page was last edited on 4 October 2024, ...
Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009), [1] established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void.
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn, 1957) is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat . The case held that a clear, definite, explicit and non-negotiable advertisement constitutes an offer, acceptance of which creates a binding contract.