Not at all, Just asking for workable definitions or understandings of terms. The which, if you knew what you w re talking about or had given it enough thought, you would probably have provided up front, the way it's dome when it's done the way it's supposed to be done.Barty baiting. Tedious. Go away. — Bartricks
That could be a reporting problem. Until recently and probably even now if you commit a minor crime here and move there, or if you have outstanding warrants here, the police there may have no way to know about it. If it was store credit and they did not report it, then that went nowhere. And if the landlord didn't pursue, then that also went nowhere. Probably defaulting on the lease is not a big deal. But finally, what happened to the furniture? Just a rhetorical question because likely the store took it back. And in back of this is the question of insurance against loss, if anyone was carrying any. And to be sure the furniture may have had residual value a small fraction of its retail value.As per the landlord, no. My friend got married, then divorced. Then returned to Canada and has a clean credit history, no criminal record, and works for the government. Go figure eh. — Book273
So you can unilaterally amend a contract in Dutch Land, without a provision therefor in the agreement? How's about you just say "Hey, I'm not going to pay. But thanks for building this house for me." Is that how you do it over there? No, it's not. I don't care how long you've practiced law in the Neverlands. You have offer, acceptance and consideration. The Dutch aren't stupid. — James Riley
Help this Anglo-Saxon dummy from America: If you offer to give me a gift and I agree to accept it, then what contract is there to enforce? Unless and until there is detrimental reliance (i.e. consideration) then there is no valid contract. I suspect you don't know what you are talking about. :roll: — James Riley
For the umpteenth time. — Benkei
Other jurisdictions don't require consideration for a valid and enforceable contract - — Benkei
Plenty of scholars who argue in the US that a clear intent to be bound by the terms by one party and detrimental reliance on the part of the other party should be sufficient - — Benkei
I really don't get what's so difficult to grasp here. Different countries, different rules. — Benkei
I didn't say there was a unilateral amendment. I said there's no consideration. — Benkei
The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for. — Benkei
So the other party agreeing to pay more is not an enforceable contract under UK law or US law. — Benkei
But if there is no unilateral amendment, then there IS consideration. DOH! It takes at least two to agree, two to contract. Consideration is what they agree to exchange. If there is no unilateral amendment, then what was given or foregone to permit the change in the original agreement? Whatever that was, was the consideration, either as permitted in the original contract, or by amendment. — James Riley
But I'll await you example of a contract without consideration. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract. — James Riley
Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Primary tabs
Definition
An obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. Also called a contract implied in law or a constructive contract, a quasi contract may be presumed by a court in the absence of a true contract, but not where a contract—either express or implied in fact—covering the same subject matter already exists.
Because a quasi contract is not a true contract, mutual assent is not necessary, and a court may impose an obligation without regard to the intent of the parties. When a party sues for damages under a quasi-contract, the remedy is typically restitution or recovery under a theory of quantum meruit. Liability is determined on a case-by-case basis. — LII of Cornell
Is that a sufficient topical reference or do we really need to go down the path of the history of inadequacies of mutually bargained for consideration as the only method by which one party can be obligated to pay the other in the absence of a tort? — Ennui Elucidator
And here is random cite in case you need a nudge.
Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Primary tabs
Definition — Ennui Elucidator
P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation. — James Riley
In general, the sale of stolen goods does not convey effective title (see Nemo dat quod non habet). However, under 'marché ouvert', if goods were openly sold in designated markets between sunrise and sunset, provenance could not be questioned and effective title of ownership was obtained.[3][4][5] The law originated centuries ago when people did not travel much; if the victim of a theft did not bother to look in his local market on market day—the only place where the goods were likely to be—he was not being suitably diligent.
— Wiki on Market Overt
You already mentioned deterimental reliance, i.e. promissory estoppel, so there was no need to mention it, let alone argue about it. — Ennui Elucidator
In any event, how about "Market Overt" for a more on point reference for purposes of the OP. — Ennui Elucidator
Yes, it was understood that some people think the burden is upon the victim and some don't. — James Riley
But if we are just going to hand wave and dismiss such trends because they don't sit right with our intuitions, I suppose there is nothing more to be said. — Ennui Elucidator
I question, however, whether strict adherence to caveat emptor in a worldwide market would be a net social good. — Ennui Elucidator
Assuming for a moment that you don't think either quantum meruit or promissory estoppel qualify (consideration, even if trivial, is made by/expected from both parties to the claim), how about the enforcability of charitable pledges? — Ennui Elucidator
I thought that was covered by our discussion of gift (and detrimental reliance), which I intended to cover all the other nuance. If I offer to give you something for nothing, and you accept, then you will need to have detrimentally relied upon my promise in order to recover. — James Riley
... The Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which many courts look to for guidance, goes a step beyond the relaxation of traditional contract requirements and provides that charitable pledges are binding without consideration or detrimental reliance.v This view has been adopted in at least two states on public policy grounds: "The real basis for enforcing a charitable subscription is one of public policy—that enforcement of a charitable subscription is a desirable social goal."vi ....
— Random Article
P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation. — James Riley
This view has been adopted in at least two states on public policy grounds: "The real basis for enforcing a charitable subscription is one of public policy — Random Article
you'd see examples of enforceable contracts that did not involve mutually bargained for consideration. — Ennui Elucidator
transmogrified by the state into a contract. — James Riley
An agreement between private parties creating mutual obligations enforceable by law. . . . — LII on contracts
Contracts are ONLY creations of the state . . . — Ennui Elucidator
an organization may include it as an asset in its publicly-available financial reporting and rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes. — James Riley
This gets tricky and most folks simply won't understand it. 501(c)(3)s as I recall are required to do accrual accounting; so, yep, Uncle's Ned's bequest, if entered at all (it could be ignored) is an asset, and assets are expressed as dollars. But they are emphatically not dollars: they're assets! And it can take even some accountants a few years to get that distinction straight. And often there will be a contra-asset for bequests pending, (or) not received, the idea being in at least some reports to negative out non-cash from cash, to net the so-called "quick" assets.
"And rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes." That's counting chickens, and bad joss wherever, however done. Detrimental reliance, at least in this context, both meaning and equaling bad management. — tim wood
"Obligation Defined
"A contract is analyzable into two elements: the agreement, which comes from the parties, and the obligation, which comes from the law and makes the agreement binding on the parties. — tim wood
Dartmouth v. Woodward? More generally, I am under the impression that in suits involving government, the government is always a named person.I've never heard of the Contract Clause as an issue between private parties. Could be, though. — James Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.