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

How would you assess Nussbaum’s incentive program? Which basic motivation concepts and theories are illustrated in this case? If the motivation approach outlined in this case is indeed valid, how might it be used in other settings?

The Managing director for my manufactoring company has just reached out to you to let you know the Management Team has met and they want to move forward with your expansion plan to the Philipines. They want you to prepare a PowerPoint Presentation with the information you have presented to the Board of Directors for final approval. The Director noted you will have 30 minutes with the Board of Directors to present the expansion plans, so you must make sure your PowerPoint has an impact. You will use the information you have researched and presented to the management team in the notes section and add visuals to the slides. What kind of Leadership Style do you feel will be most appropriate for the Philipines. The ideal PowerPoint will include slides for each of the following using extensive speaker notes for your content: Introduction: Talk about yourself and your background. Country Background: Provide a brief overview of the Philipines you have chosen and why you think it will…

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