The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Students have asked these similar questions

State whether the following agreements or contracts are void, voidable valid, and provide a reason for your answer. 1 ) Taylor, aged 17, gets married, and divorces two months later. After getting divorced, she enters into a contract with Michael for the sale of his house. ( 2 ) Jessica, aged 5, enters into a contract with John, aged 11, for the sale of his bicycle. 3 ) Nomsa, aged 16, runs a successful boutique with the consent of her parents, and enters into a contract relating to her business. 4 ) Amy, who is 17, has inherited an apartment in Cape Town from her deceased father. The apartment is valued at R2 million. With her mother’s assistance, Amy enters into an agreement to sell the apartment to her aunt. 5 ) Justin, who is mentally ill, concludes a contract for the sale of his laptop without his curator knowing. (2)

As a student, how do you explain it? Section 6. (a) Any creditor who in connection with any credit transaction fails to disclose to any person any information in violation of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable to such person in the amount of P100 or in an amount equal to twice the finance charged required by such creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is the greater, except that such liability shall not exceed P2,000 on any credit transaction. Action to recover such penalty may be brought by such person within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, in any court of competent jurisdiction. In any action under this subsection in which any person is entitled to a recovery, the creditor shall be liable for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs as determined by the court. (b) Except as specified in subsection (a) of this section, nothing contained in this Act or any regulation contained in this Act or any regulation…

Oliver, while he was so drunk that he didn’t know what he was doing, bid successfully at an auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Oliver didn’t know what he was doing. However, after Oliver sobered up, he confirmed the contract with the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Oliver bound to the contract? Required: Answer this question using the IRAC * method.

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 3

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 4

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 5

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Answer 6

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Answer 7

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.