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

19) The Elle Corporation manufactures fingernail polish. Suzy buys a container of Elle's fingernail polish, applies it to her nails, and suffers a severe allergic reaction. She sues Elle under the implied warranty of merchantability, The test for determining whether Suzy will recover is whether: A) the nail polish she bought was suitable for the needs of the average consumer. B) the nail polish she bought properly performed its function of coloring one's nails. C) such a reaction in an appreciable number of consumers was reasonably foreseeable. D) the ingredient causing the reaction was foreign to the nail polish or natural to it. nating one model, Bobby notices

16) Goods means every kind of immovable property other than actionable claims and money. a) True b) False 17) Faiz meets Farhan, a car dealer and tells him that he wants a car that can move 20km/liter. Farhan promotes one of the cars in the showroom and says that it suits the purpose. Faiz buys the car by relying on Farhan's representation. Subsequently Faiz finds that the car can move 15km/liter. The above situation is an example of breach of warranty. a) True b) False

Standard Appliance Co. has an employee pension plan under which Aurelia has worked for 31 years. Aurelia is laid off at age 60, and five years later, she retires and attempts to draw her pension benefits. However, Aurelia is informed that she is not eligible for pension benefits because she had not been working under the Standard Appliance Co. plan at the time of her retirement. Is this correct? Yes, if that is what the Standard Appliance Co. plan specifies. No, since Aurelia worked longer than 10 years for Standard Appliance Co. No, since Aurelia's benefits are vested. Yes, since Standard Appliance Co, only has a responsibility to current employees.

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.