The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Students have asked these similar questions

Please original work (Please dont add any AI sentences) Background information: LEGO was founded in 1932. The word LEGO is from the Danish words LEg GOdt (play well). Later, it was realized that in Latin the word means “I put together”. The firm initially made wooden toys as well as other wood products stepladders, ironing boards, stools, etc. In 1947, the LEGO Group bought a plastic injection-molding machine for toy production and in 1949 the first LEGO Automatic Binding Brick with four and eight studs appeared. LEGO flourished for many years with its innovative toys. However, in 2004, innovation almost bankrupted the Danish toymaker. LEGO had become concerned about low-cost copies of its plastic building products so it sought to diversify into different activities including: theme parks, Clikits craft sets, action figures (Galidor), and a television show among other efforts. All of these were unprofitable and were eventually discontinued. Today, LEGO is growing in an overall…

Please original work Talk about your current organization’s greatest needs for creating a balanced scorecard for management consulting firm, and steps you would take to design the balance scorecard. Please cite in text references and add weblinks.

Please original work How do you think organizations can effectively balance short-term resource constraints with the need for long-term investments in areas like technology and employee development, especially when both are critical to achieving strategic goals? Please cite in text references and add weblinks

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 3

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 4

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 5

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Answer 6

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Answer 7

Chapter 12, Problem 1CO

Summary Introduction

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Legal sufficiency:

The thinking is the legitimate confidence that bolsters a guarantee in a contract; it is the assignment to establish an enforceable contract. For the guarantee to be legitimately adequate, the thought must either be a lawful disservice to the promise or a legitimate advantage to the promisor. In other words, in exchange for the pledge, the promiser must get some legitimate esteem or the promisor must give up something of legitimate esteem. The legitimate responsibility does not hurt cruelly, but or perhaps something that was already under no valid obligation by the promisor to do or abstain from doing. Legal benefit means that the promiser obtains that which he had no prior legal right to obtain.

Adequacy:

Legitimate appropriateness has nothing to do with the broadness of thought. Whether the deal was "fair" or either excellent or terrible for either party is not at all concerned with the need for genuinely adequate thinking. Essentially, the condition is: (1) that the parties have freely agreed to a trade and (2) that the subject matter has been exchanged or promised in exchange, either causing the promisee to have a legal disservice or giving the promisor a legal advantage.

Unilateral Contracts:

In a one-sided contract, one party (the promiser) is providing a pledge from another party (the promisee) for an operation (or prohibition from acting). For return, the promisee does not offer a commitment, but simply fulfils the operation or constraint to the overall contract.

Bilateral Contracts:

There is an exchange of promises in a respective deal, so every party is both a promiser and a promisee.

Answer 9

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 10

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 11

Ch. 12 - Prob. 1CO Ch. 12 - Prob. 2CO Ch. 12 - Prob. 3CO Ch. 12 - Prob. 4CO Ch. 12 - Prob. 5CO Ch. 12 - Prob. 1Q Ch. 12 - Prob. 2Q Ch. 12 - Prob. 3Q Ch. 12 - Prob. 4Q Ch. 12 - Prob. 5Q

The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

To discuss: The consideration and explain the meaning of legal sufficiency.

Explanation of Solution

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Chapter 12 Solutions