The existence of a counterparty is determined by examining whether the person against whom a promise is to be made (the PromisorDer who makes a promise) has received something in return from the person to whom he made the promise (the promise to whom a promise is made). This may seem like a simple question. But like many things in the law, complicated situations are never far apart. The “something” promised or delivered cannot be everything: a sense of pride, warmth, entertainment, friendship; It must be something known as a legal disadvantageThe task of what a person may have kept – an act, an indulgence or a promise of such a promise. The disadvantage does not have to be a real disadvantage; It can indeed be an advantage for the promise, or at least no loss. At the same time, the “disadvantage” of the promise must not bring tangible benefits to the one who promises it; the promise can agree to renounce anything without that something being given to the promisor. Whether the consideration is legally sufficient has nothing to do with whether it is morally or economically appropriate to make the activity fair. Moreover, the legal balance need not even be certain; It can be a promise that depends on an event that might never happen. Consideration is a legal concept that focuses on the surrender of a right or benefit. In interpreting agreements, courts generally apply an objective measure when they consider something to be aliens; Not subjective. The reformulation (second) of the contracts defines the agreement as a “manifestation of the mutual consent of two or more persons with each other”.
(section 3) The MoU defines the agreement as “the agreement between the parties, as actually found in their language or implicitly in other circumstances, including the evolution of trade, usage or performance”. (Article 1-201(3)) The crucial question is what the parties said or did, not what they thought, said or did. The central point of a favorable contract is the agreement between the parties. It`s not just a matter of convenience; It is the heart of our received philosophical and psychological convictions. As the great student of contract law, Samuel Williston, said: as can be seen from the title of the law and its language, the general purpose of the law is to prove, in areas of some complexity and importance, that a contract has actually been concluded. To a lesser extent, the law serves to alert those who are about to enter into a contract and to “create a climate in which the parties often regard their agreements as provisional until there is a signed writing.” (Reformulation (second) of contracts Chapter 5, legal reference) When the minor grows up, he has two possibilities: he can ratify or refuse the treaty to renounce or legally avoid a treaty. That`s right. It may expressly ratify; No further balancing is necessary. It may do so implicitly – for example, by continuing to pay or withholding goods for an inappropriate period of time. (In some states, a court may ratify the treaty before the child`s age. In California, for example, a state law allows a film producer to obtain judicial authorization for a contract with a child actor to prevent the child from dissolving it when he or she is of majority and complaining about additional wages.
In return, the Tribunal may order the producer to pay a percentage of the wages into a trust that the child`s parents or legal guardians cannot enter.) If the child has not terminated the contract during his minors, he may do so within a reasonable time after the age of majority. . . .