Business Law notes

Business Law notes - 3/23/2010 Chapter 12 pg 223 Disagree...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
3/23/2010 Chapter 12 pg 223 Disagree with authors consideration- is a necessary element of a contract and this is a bollerism. Artificial concept according to him . The court created this based on public policy considerations. If you say is mutual assent a real concept or an artificial one? It is clearly a real one. The parties have gotten together and agree on something. . Because both parties have agreed. But here the courts are adding this so that the cases come out the way the they feel they should. If the policeman saw the flasher and the policeman was familiar of the reward he couldn’t collect. Part of the reason that the police can’t collect is because they’re already bound (obligated) to apprehend criminals. On a public policy level we don’t want the police just running around going after people for whom they can collect an award if they capture. Consideration, don’t know yet. Left hand column on pg. 223 take pen and cross out the paragraph start “legal detriment” carries over to the top of the next column, you want to cross that out and write in margin “garbage”. Before class is over you’ll see he’s right. What is consideration- what is the test on whether we have consideration? We have consideration when we have mutual inducement. What do we mean by mutual inducement , we mean that each party is motivated to get what the other party has. Book is wrong, If you are at a Porsche dealership and you decide to part with the 84K before tax for the Porsche and the dealer agrees to sell it to you for that price. Are you giving up this money because you like the dealer? No because you want the Porsche, and is he doing it because he likes you, NO he’s doing it for the money. So we have mutual inducement. Wrong reasoning from book they are saying there’s a legal detriment and legal benefit. Legal benefit is where you are getting something you previously didn’t have the right to keep. Legal Detriment, giving something you had the legal right to give. This is wrong when we have a legal detriment and legal benefit we have consideration. Boller’s response: NONSENSE . HYPO: She before class bought a sun times for $.75 reads it her. Another person offers at the end of class 10K for her used sun times, her response. YES. Do we have consideration? NO because non mutual inducement, if you use the author’s analysis you would conclude there is consideration. Does she have the legal right to keep the paper for the rest of her life if she wanted to? YES. Giving up the newspaper, she’s suffering legal detriment. When she gets the 10k for her used sun times, she’s getting a legal benefit. YES. When you get the newspaper, she’s getting something she didn’t have the legal right to get. When she gives the 10k is she suffering legal detriment? YES. There is no consideration. What is actually happening? A gift. A court is going to say, we don’t have mutual inducement, this is simply a disguised gift. It may
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 26

Business Law notes - 3/23/2010 Chapter 12 pg 223 Disagree...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online