משרד: 02-9605631    להזמנות גדולות: 052-8990321    פקס: 153-2-9605631
כללי

The study of law and the structure of the legal system Since any person has the right to take legal action if they feel violated, a promise not to go to court is a sufficient consideration to support a promise of payment or benefit. In Dedeaux v. Young, Dedeaux purchased a property and promised to make certain payments to Young, the broker. Dedeaux v. Young, 170 So.2d 561 (1965). But Dedeaux did not make these payments, and Young threatened to sue; If he had filed documents in court, the transfer of ownership could have been blocked. To dissuade Young from taking legal action, Dedeaux promised to pay a 5% commission if Young stayed out of court. Dedeaux later refused on the grounds that he had never made such a promise and that even if he did, it was not a contract because there was no quid pro quo from Young. The tribunal disagreed, holding that the evidence supported Young`s contention that Dedeaux had indeed made such a promise, and upheld Young`s claim to the commission because “an application for an injunction prohibiting the exercise of a legal right was generally accepted as sufficient consideration in support of a contract.” If Young had no reason to sue — for example, if he had threatened to sue a stranger, or if it could be proved that Dedeaux originally had no obligation to him — then there would have been no consideration because Young would not have waived a legal right. A promise to waive a lawsuit in exchange for resolving a dispute is called an agreement not to sueAn agreement not to take legal action. (Pact is another word for agreement). In criminal law, the constitutional guarantee that an accused receives a fair and impartial trial.

In civil law, the legal rights of a person who is confronted with an adverse act that threatens liberty or property. Not all promises are promises to do something. Sometimes it is an illusory promise promising in fact gives no consideration, as in “I will paint your house in June if I feel like it.”, where the terms of the contract really oblige the promisor not to give up anything, not to suffer any harm. For example, Lydia offers Juliette $10 to mow Lydia`s lawn. Juliette promises to mow the lawn whenever she feels like it. Can Juliette enforce the contract? No, because Juliette did not suffer any legal disadvantage; His promise is illusory, because if it does nothing, it always falls into the literal formulation of his promise. The doctrine that such agreements are unenforceable is sometimes referred to as the rule of mutual obligation: if one party has not made a binding commitment, the other party is not bound either. So if A signs a contract to hire B for one year for $6,000 per month and reserves the right to fire B at any time (a “termination option”) and B agrees to work for a year, A has really promised nothing; A is not bound by the agreement, and B is not. An agreement is a contract and must therefore be supported by a counterparty. Let`s say Jan owes Andy $7,000, due on November 1.

On November 1, Jan pays only $3,500 in exchange for Andy`s promise to relieve Jan of the rest of the debt. Did Andy (the Promiser) make a binding promise? He did not do so, because there is no quid pro quo for the agreement. Jan suffered no disadvantage; She received something (exemption from the obligation to pay the remaining $3,500), but she did not give up anything. But if Jan and Andy had agreed that Jan would pay the $3,500 on October 25, then there would be considerations; Jan would have suffered a legal disadvantage if she had undertaken to make a payment earlier than required by the original contract. If Jan had paid the $3,500 on November 11 and given Andy something else – a pen, a barrel of beer, a peppercorn – the required inconvenience would also have been present. An action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant based on a claim that the defendant failed to comply with a legal obligation that caused harm to the plaintiff. Generally refers to two events in individual bankruptcy cases: (1) the “individual or group briefing” of a nonprofit budget and credit advisory agency, which individual debtors must participate in before filing under a chapter of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) the “Personal Financial Management Course” in Chapters 7 and 13, which an individual debtor must complete before debt relief is registered. There are exceptions to both requirements for certain categories of debtors, urgent circumstances, or if U.S. trustees or insolvency administrators have determined that there are not enough licensed credit counselling agencies available to provide the required advice. provide sufficient information to enable the person receiving the communication to act in full knowledge of the facts. Too little information can violate a person`s legal rights. Governmental body empowered to settle disputes.

Judges sometimes use the term “court” to refer to themselves in the third person, as in “the court read the pleadings.” The right as set out in previous court decisions. Synonymous with precedent. Similar to the common law, which stems from tradition and judicial decisions. Finally, in immigration law, a “good and sufficient” reason is often a contentious issue, because the law governing visa revocation (8 U.S.C. Section 1155) provides: “The Secretary of Homeland Security may at any time revoke the approval of a petition for just and sufficient cause.” Under this standard, the determination of just cause is at the sole discretion of the Secretary and is therefore not subject to judicial review. Not amenable to settlement by agreement and satisfaction is the situation in which a party has a pre-existing obligation and is offered an advantage to perform it. If the only consideration offered to the promisor is an act or promise to act to fulfill a pre-existing obligation, there is no valid contract. As Denney v. Reppert states (Section 11.4.2 “Consideration: Pre-existing Undertaking”), the Promisor is not at a legal disadvantage if he promises to assume what he is already obliged to do. If a person is promised a benefit for not doing what he is already forbidden to do, there is no quid pro quo.

David is sixteen years old; His uncle promised him $50 if he abstained from smoking. The promise is unenforceable: legally, David must already quit smoking, so he promised not to give up anything to which he was legally entitled. As already mentioned, the difficulty arises when it is not clear whether a person has a pre-existing obligation or whether such unforeseen difficulties have arisen that justify the acknowledgement that the parties have amended the contract or completed a novation. What happens if Peter insists on an additional payment to remove a wheelbarrow full of quicksand from the excavation? Admittedly, this is not enough “unforeseen difficulty”. How much quicksand is enough? The courts do not question the adequacy of the consideration, but require (with some exceptions) that the promisor suffer a legal disadvantage (the waiver of a legal right he possesses – to renounce something) in order to obtain the negotiated benefit. The waiver of the right of action is a legal disadvantage, and the problem arises when analyzing different types of dispute settlement agreements (agreement and satisfaction): the obligation to pay the full amount that a creditor claims for a liquidated debt, an unliquidated debt and a disputed debt. If unforeseen difficulties arise, a debtor is entitled to additional compensation (consideration) to resolve them, either because the contract has been amended or because the parties have entered into a novation, but no additional consideration is due to someone who fulfills a pre-existing obligation or does not do what he is legally obliged to do. If a promisor makes an illusory promise, he gives nothing in return and no contract is concluded; But exclusivity agreements, demand contracts and service contracts are not considered illusory. Because our communications communicate decisions and decisions and inform individuals of their rights and obligations under our programs, we must ensure that our communications are legally adequate.

Non-insolvency proceedings in which an applicant or creditor attempts to submit its claim to a debtor`s future wages. In other words, the creditor requests that part of the debtor`s future salary be paid to him for a debt owed to him.

Tags:
X