In addition, the exchange of a promise to share is also considered a valid consideration. For example, a countervailable contract remains a valid contract until it is declared void. Thus, a contract with a minor remains in force, unless the minor decides that he does not want to be bound by it. When the minor reaches the age of majority, he can “ratify” the contract – that is, agree to be bound by him – in which case the contract is no longer questionable and is subsequently fully enforceable. Although it is not really part of the taxonomy of contracts (i.e. the ordered classification of the subject), one aspect of contractual, or even legal, terminology needs to be highlighted here. Suffixes (the final syllables of words) in the English language are used to express the relationships between the parties in legal terminology. Here are some examples: Contracts are described and therefore defined on the basis of four criteria: explicit (explicit, implicit or quasi-contractual), reciprocity (bilateral or unilateral), applicability (void, questionable, unenforceable) and degree of completion (executable, partially executed, executed). Legal terminology in English often describes the relationships between the parties through the use of suffixes to which the eye and ear must pay attention. The idea of consideration is crucial for contract law, because for a contract to be enforceable, there must be “reciprocity of obligation”.
In other words, for a contract to be valid, both parties must be required to perform the contract. Consideration, which is the obligation that the contracting parties incur towards each other, is at the heart of the rule of “reciprocity of obligation” and, therefore, a contract without consideration is not enforceable. For example: Teaching has an interesting context. In 1937, High Trees House Ltd. (a British company) leased a block of London apartments to Central London Properties. As World War II approached, vacancy rates skyrocketed as people left the city. In 1940, the parties agreed to halve rental prices, but no deadline was set for the duration of the reduction. By mid-1945, at the end of the war, the occupation was full again and central London filed a lawsuit to obtain the full rental price from June.
The English court under the direction of Judge Alfred Thompson Denning (1899-1999) had no difficulty in determining that High Trees owed the full amount once full occupancy was reached again, but Justice Denning continued. In an accompanying note (called a dicta – a statement “by the way” – i.e. not necessary as part of the decision), he reflected on what would have happened if central London had taken legal action for the full occupancy rate until 1940 in 1945. Technically, the amendment to the 1937 Treaty of 1940 was not binding on central London – there was a lack of consideration – and central London could have returned to demand full payment. But Judge Denning said High Trees would certainly have relied on central London`s promise that a reduced rent would be acceptable, and that would have been enough to bind it to prevent it from acting inconsistently with the promise. He wrote: “The courts did not go so far as to give a cause of action for damages for breach of such a promise, but they refused to allow the party who made it incompatible with it.” Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd. (1947) KB 130.
An unenforceable contract is a contract that the rule of law prohibits a court from doing. For example, Tom owes Pete money, but Pete waited too long to get it back and the statute of limitations expired. The repayment contract is unenforceable and Pete is out of luck unless Tom makes a new promise of payment or actually pays off some of the debt. (However, if Pete considers the guarantee to be a guarantee for the debt, he has the right to retain it; not all rights expire because a contract is unenforceable.) A debt also becomes unenforceable if the debtor files for bankruptcy. The typical contract is a contract in which the parties make mutual promises. Everyone is both promising and promising; that is, everyone promises to do something, and everyone is the recipient of such a promise. This type of contract is called a bilateral treaty. An explicit contract is a contract in which the conditions are directly announced. The parties to an express contract, whether written or oral, are aware that they are entering into an enforceable agreement. For example, an agreement to buy your neighbor`s car for $5,500 and take back the title the following Monday is an explicit contract. An agreement that consists of a series of promises is called a performance contract before the promises are executed. Most enforceable contracts are enforceable.
When John enters into an agreement to deliver wheat to Humphrey and does so, the contract is called a partially executed contract: one party has fulfilled, the other has not. When John pays for the wheat, the contract is fully fulfilled. A contract that has been fully performed by both parties is called an executed contract. Consideration: Something of value (either a promise, an action, or an object) that a promisor receives from a promisor in exchange for his or her promise. A quasi-contract (implicit in the law) is – unlike explicit and implicit contracts that embody a real agreement between the parties – a so-called “legally imposed” obligation to avoid the unjustified enrichment of one person at the expense of another person. A quasi-contract is not a contract at all; it is a fiction that the courts have created to prevent injustice. Suppose the local lumber yard accidentally delivers a load of wood to your home where you are repairing your deck. It was a neighbor of the neighboring block who ordered the wood, but you are happy to accept the charge for free; Since you`ve never spoken to the lumber yard, you think you don`t have to pay the bill. Although it is true that there is no contract, the law implies a contract on the value of the material: of course, you have to pay for what you got and took. The existence of this implied contract does not depend on the intention of the parties. In contrast, a questionable contract is one that cannot be performed by one party, but can be performed by the other.
For example, a minor (anyone under the age of eighteen, in most states) can “avoid” a contract with an adult; the adult cannot enforce the contract against the minor if the minor refuses to perform the contract. However, the adult has no choice if the minor wants the contract to be fulfilled. (A contract can be contested by either party if both are minors.) These legally enforceable promises can be made in writing or orally. In any case, the conclusion of a legally binding contract requires two fundamental elements: consideration and mutual consent. This chapter deals with the issues and problems associated with the consideration. We will discuss a mutual agreement in the next chapter. Normally, the parties to a questionable contract have the right to be restored to their original state. Suppose you agree to buy the car from your seventeen-year-old neighbor. He gives it to you in exchange for your consent to pay it next week. He has the right to cancel the agreement and get the car back, in which case, of course, you are not obliged to pay for it. If you have already paid for it, it can still legally demand a return to the status quo ante (old state of affairs).
You have to return the car to him; he has to give you the money back. The Uniform Code of Commerce, or U.C.C., represents a kind of derogation from customary contract law. .
