Contract Consideration

>>1566684

So the preacher one doesn't work because you need a bargained for exchange to be consideration, it can't have already happened, or be a gift.

The parachute works because you had it.

>>1566700

So mere acceptance can constitute as consideration? ( regarding the parachute one)

>>1566684
1. consideration occurred as J performs a service in exchange for A's $300. Basic consideration, does not need anything else.

I give you 5 dollars to walk across the jew york bridge. That is a binding oral contract for performance.

2. No consideration as essentially a gift, you can't have someone's past performance as consideration

3. Obviously works as money to do or not do something is consideration for a tasks performance or non-performance.

4. I remember my prof saying something like: if someone is dying in the desert you could probably contract with them for water. For the purposes of consideration I would consider that to be true.

This has it as B is asking for performance in exchange for $500, so basically questions one with new facts.

>>1566700
just realized how unhelpful this was.

>>1566713

I don't completely under the last part but this makes the first two a lot clearer, thankyou.

>>1566720
>>1566706

So its that you need to exchange the thing of value for another thing of value.

5 grain for your 2 spices
5% of my Grain for the service of grinding my grain
500 grain for your building my house

The consideration occurs when x is traded for y, and x and y are not

1. of no value (or fictional, ie bc u r a qt 3.14)
2. something that happened in the past
3. Illegal
4. preexisting right

so basically if it is essentially a gift, it is illegal, or it is a non sensical trade, it doesn't work.

>>1566737

I see, now the only part that confused because of what we talked a little about in class is if the person was already obligated to help, however I think I might have mistaken that as it only counts for minors or from police/military. This does lay a lot out though, this will help thankyou.

>>1566749

minors can't actually make non-voidable contracts except for food and shelter.

imagine the preexisting rule as an extension of how you can't contract for something that they already are required to perform as then you are just giving them a present.

You don't have to pay for something you have already bought.

>>1566760

well that's what I meant, as in you are obligated to help a minor in need (such as finding one injured, lost, or in freezing weather with no clothing), regardless of terms or contract

>>1566765

I was more talking about minors rolling up to your boarding house and contracting for things.

I have never heard of an obligation to help a minor in contract but there are aspects of tort for that. Remember that stuff is in practice usually a mixture of tort, property, and contract. Your professor may have been talking about that.

>>1566781

could be, and again I think it's referring more to say officers who absolutely need to help certain people

>>1566781
Yeah, there is no such thing as "an obligation to help" not even police have that obligation (assuming you are in the US).

>>1566796

no general duty of care so no negligence?

>>1566796
>>1566800

I just did a little research and there is an implied duty, however as far as minors go it looks like the primary duty obligated is by the parents and such, I'm not totally sure about someone like in the parachute case

>>1566805

Parents have a special relationship with their children, as do teachers ect. In those you are in tort, so no need for consideration, just need to not be negligent. Like you can't let pedos into the school because you are too high. You would probably be liable.

>>1566684
Law is incredibly rewarding to learn, but so difficult.

The amount of stuff you have to commit to memory is insane.

>>1566954

honestly it's a little tricky but I'm doing alright with it, it's my accounting class that makes me want to change my gender, get pregnant, and have an abortion because fuck life and fuck having write statements and tables from scratch when our homework doesn't make us do that

>>1566966
Kek.

Law is relevant to day to day life, accounting not so much.

>>1566984

yeah, maybe that and just being easier to understand and apply is why it seems a little easier to me, accounting makes sense in the basics, but it comes down to milking an equation that we've added and added to.

>>1566684
question 1 is literally the easiest question on contracts I can think of. If you failed this, you should reread the basics starting from scratch

>>1567082

the reason why I second guessed it was because I coudn't determine if consideration was made wince there was no verification of acceptance (plus it wasn't stated the agreement was in writing but now I'm just thinking ucc terms)

>>1567264
Acceptance is separate from consideration. Your first mistake was thinking that they're somehow related.

1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Consideration.
4. Mutuality*

*exceptions may apply

Not that difficult.

>>1567268

well when the quiz was titled "contract-consideration" and it was after we learned the section on consideration I figured it was in that direction