This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: – in ascertaining the presence of consideration, the courts will not weigh the consideration, or insist on a “fair” or “even” exchange. Roy Notes : Nominal consideration v. adequacy of consideration – inadequate consideration still has a bargained for exchange. Nominal consideration isn’t a quid pro quo. It didn’t induce the promise. Classical Theory – not concerned with “fairness” Restatement (Second) §79 – no requirement or “equivalence in the values exchanged.” (However, gross inadequacy of consideration may be relevant). If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of (a) a gain, advantage, or benefit to the promisor or a loss, disadvantage, or detriment to the promise; or (b) equivalence in the values exchanged (Batsakis); or (c) “mutuality of obligation” Mutuality of Obligation – there is no such thing; it is not a requirement we still recognize...
View Full Document
- Fall '08
- Texas Court of Civil Appeals