What Consideration Supports This Agreement

For many political reasons, the courts will apply certain types of promises, even if there is no quid pro quo. Some of them are governed by the Single Code of Trade (UCC); others are part of the established common law. A similar problem arises with respect to production contracts and demand contracts. In a production contractAn agreement to sell all of its goods or services to one person, the seller – say a coal company – agrees to sell all of its annual coal production to an electricity supplier. Did she really agree to produce and sell coal? And if the owner of the coal mine decides to stop production to take a year off, is this a violation of the agreement? Yes, yes. The law requires the seller to manufacture and sell a reasonable amount. Similarly, when the electricity supplier is responsible for purchasing all of its coal requirements from the coal company – a contract of needIn agreement to buy all requirements (of goods or services) from a single source.- could it decide to shut down the operation completely and not take coal? No, it is necessary to take a reasonable amount. Do you have a problem with a contract that you need to fix? Does a technical point in your contract prevent you from doing what you want? On February 15, 1966, the defendant signed a document that gave the plaintiff a 60-day option to purchase the defendant`s house. This document, written by the applicant`s representative, confirmed the defendant`s receipt to the tune of “One and no/100 ($1.00) dollar and other valuable considerations.” The applicant acknowledges that neither a dollar nor any other consideration was ever paid to the defendant, nor was it even tendered. On April 14, 1966, the applicant submitted in writing to the defendant its intention to make use of the option. On the reference date, the defendant rejected the applicant`s offer at the purchase price.

The applicant then brought this action for a special benefit. An exception to this rule is the existence of an obligation to a third party. An act that occurs before the commitment to pay or grant another benefit can sometimes be a counterpart to the undertaking. To do so, three conditions must be met (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]): however, this requirement must be in line with other requirements. The consideration must be an exchange for the good deal in question; The considerations of the past are not good. A simple offer may be revoked by the supplier at any time prior to acceptance by the supplier for some reason or reason. [Quote] This is the question in this case: “Did the defendant effectively revoke its offer to sell before the plaintiff accepted that offer?” … Not all promises are a promise to do anything.

Comments are closed.