Home Consideration

Consideration

Read This Before Entering Into A Contract Intoxicated

Read This Before Entering Into A Contract Intoxicated

An intoxicated person in a contract dispute may find that the contract under discussion is either voidable or valid. The standard of intoxication is similar to that which must be present in a criminal defense attempting to excuse the actions due to intoxication. 
A valid contract is a contract that has the full force of law and is binding to both parties. In contract disputes involving intoxicated individuals a voidable contract can be avoided by the party that was under the influence at the time the contract was created. Contract law basics do not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
During contract disputes in which the intoxicated party attempts to prove that the contract should be declared voidable, they must prove that they were intoxicated to the point that they were unaware of the legal consequences of entering into the contract. If this can be proven, it will establish that the contract violates one of the contract law basics, specifically that the parties to the contract must genuinely assent to enter the contract. 
It is rare that contract disputes are settled in favor of the intoxicated individual being released from the contract due to being too intoxicated because it is very difficult to conclusively establish the degree of intoxication which would result in this loss of awareness.
If the courts have ruled that a contract is voidable due to the contracted party’s intoxication, then the intoxicated individual has the right to disaffirm the contract. Contracts to obtain necessary services, such as medical care, cannot be disaffirmed to to intoxication. Disaffirmation can only be completed by providing restitution for the contracted service or by returning in full and undamaged the item or items obtained.
The right to disaffirm a voidable contract can be waived through ratification. The ratification can be explicit, such as when a party that entered into a contract while intoxicated becomes sober and states their intention to continue the use of the contracted service. 
The ratification can also be implied. Implied ratification occurs when after becoming sober a party continues to use the item they obtained while intoxicated. Explicit ratification must occur within a reasonable time of the party’s regaining their sobriety.
An alcoholic has the full culpability and liability for contracts entered into while sober as any other individual.

Make Sure You Understand Mental Incompetence

Make Sure You Understand Mental Incompetence

Business contract law holds that persons that have been declared mentally incompetent in a court of law may find a contract they enter into declared void, voidable, or enforceable.
 
 
Mental incompetence as it applies to the law of contract is only in effect if the individual in question has been declared mentally incompetent by a court of law, and that the incompetence has been declared so severe as to require the individual be assigned a guardian. 
 
 
The guardian is the only person who can enter into a contract on the incompetent person's behalf. If a person who has been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent attempts to enter into a contract on their own part, the contract will be declared void.
 
 
A contract entered into by a person that has been found to be mentally incompetent may be determined under business contract law to be voidable if the individual formed the contract before they were judged to be suffering from some form of mental incompetence. 
 
 
The law of contract may rule that a contract involving a person suffering from a deficit of mental competency is voidable if the individual was not aware of the fact that they were entering into a contract, or if they were incapable of comprehending the contract's nature, consequence, or purpose. The possibility to avoid the contract lies with the party that is does not have full control of their mental capacities.
 
 
Business contract law recognizes that it is possible for a person who has been previously declared mentally incompetent to have moments of lucidity. If a contract is entered into during a moment of lucidity by an otherwise utterly incompetent person, as long as at the moment the contract was formed the individual was cognizant of the nature, consequence, and purpose for which the contract was created, then they may be fully liable for the execution of the contract. 
 
 
The law of contract recognizes that though an individual may not have the mental capacity in relation to any other legal arena, the individual may have the requisite mental capacity to commence a contract.
 

Agreements that Lack Consideration and Areas of Concern

Agreements that Lack Consideration and Areas of Concern

If consideration is lacking after contract negotiations, then the bargains worked out by the two would-be parties to a contract are referred to as agreements that lack consideration. An agreement can lack consideration for several reasons.
If a monetary exchange is not believed to be bargained for the courts may determine that the money exchanged does not constitute adequate consideration between the two parties. Money may also be invalidated as a form of consideration in the event the exchange of money is not believed to have been arrived at as the result of an equitable or exhaustive bargain.
In agreements that lack consideration, after court rulings which involve would-be consideration constituted by action or the forbearance of action these acts can be discounted under two circumstances.
The first is if there was a preexisting duty to commit the action or if there was a preexisting duty to forbear the commission of the act. If John promises his fifteen-year-old son he will pay him $500 if he does not smoke marijuana, then a contract will not exist because a contract cannot be formed to compel an individual to commit an action that they are prohibited by law from committing. 
However, if John promises his fifteen-year-old son $500 if the son does not smoke marijuana or chew gum between 4 P.M. and 4:10 P.M. for five years, then a legal contract with adequate consideration has been formed. The difference between these two similar agreements is that in the second, John’s son agrees to forbear from committing an act in which he is legally permitted to engage. However, if the son smokes marijuana or chews gum before the contract is concluded, then the contract would become invalidated.
An agreement also lacks consideration if the consideration of one party is provided in return for an action which the other committed prior to entering into the contract. If Kathy pulls Karen out of a burning car, Karen cannot be forced into an agreement where she provides consideration for Kathy’s rescuing her. Consideration can only be for future actions. Whatever happened happened, and whatever has been done is done and so cannot be used as the consideration in a contract. 
Past consideration on behalf of either party is invalid for being submitted as grounds for a contractual discussion. If the consideration offered by one of the parties is for an action that has already occurred, then the corresponding agreement that lacks consideration will be found to be unenforceable. 

Important Details Regarding Minors and Contracts

Important Details Regarding Minors and Contracts

Minors have limited ability to enter into a contract agreement. A minor in a contract law case is anyone under the age of eighteen. There are several circumstances under which a person below the age of eighteen may have the full legal capacity to enter into a contract. If a person is married while under eighteen years of age, they usually are held to the full capability to enter into contracts, although this is determined on a State by State basis.
Emancipation may also cause an individual to cease to be considered a minor. Emancipation is a legal process which takes place when an individual who has not yet reached the normal age of majority can be declared to no longer be a minor if they are paying their own bills, supplying their own place of residence, and are no longer reliant upon their parent or legal guardian in any way.
A minor who has been emancipated has all the contractual rights and obligations of a person who has reached the age of majority. Unless the minor has been emancipated, they have distinct contractual rights.
The first right granted to minors in contract law cases is the right to disaffirm. Disaffirming occurs when the minor states, either in a verbal declaration or by their actions, that they no longer intend to be bound by the terms of the contract to which they are a party. Upon reaching the age of majority, the minor may choose to disaffirm the contract they were entered into while in the minority. If they do not disaffirm the contract within a reasonable period of time, they are considered to have ratified the contract.
There are several restrictions placed in contract law cases on when a minor is permitted to disaffirm a contract agreement. The minor must disaffirm the contract agreement within a reasonable amount of time of reaching the age of majority. A minor is not allowed to utilize their right to disaffirm if they have falsely stated their age or if the contract agreement was engaged in order to obtain services or goods deemed essential to their survival.
An increasing number of states are restricting the ability of a minor to disaffirm a contract if they have benefitted from the contract in any way. A minor disaffirming a contract is required to make every effort to restore the other party to the status they were in prior to the assumption of the contract. The courts do recognize that a minor who has disaffirmed a contract involving a good they are no longer in possession of are usually not held responsible for compensating the other party.
Contract law cases generally do not extend a minor’s liability to a guardian or parent. The only time a guardian assumes legal liability for a contract agreement their ward enters into in contract law cases is if the guardian co-signs the contract.

Understanding Settlement of Claims

Understanding Settlement of Claims

In the event of a dispute over how much consideration is due to a party to a contract, a settlement of claims can be attempted to be reached in several ways when dealing with legal contracts. Contracts law recognizes accords and satisfactions, releases from contract, and covenants not to sue as valid means of settling disputed claims.
Accord and satisfaction is the first way that a claim by one attempting to force another to act may be settled. This method of settling the disputes which may arise out of legal contracts have two elements. The first is that the parties reach an accord as to the terms which will modify the original offer and agreement. An accord lays out the new terms by which the parties agree to be bound. The terms of the accord supplant those of the original legal contracts. 
A satisfaction is the execution of an accord. Under contracts law a satisfaction cannot be implemented unless the parties have reached an accord. The accord and satisfaction must exchange some consideration that was not present in the original contract which the satisfaction is abridging.
A release from legal contracts is another method to settle a disputed contractual claim. Each release contains particular terms which comprise promises not to file a future lawsuit in a court focused on contracts law in relation to the claim that is settled in the release.
In order for a release to be granted the full weight of law, the release is usually required to be in writing and contain the signatures of the concerned parties or their duly appointed representatives, must be agreed upon by the parties as the result of an understanding which they have reached in good faith, and must be accompanied by some form of consideration that is distinct from the consideration which was present in the contract from which the parties are being released.
Releases from legal contracts are usually accompanied by the tearing up of the original contract, although this is not required. A release is called a release because it occurs when one party grants as consideration their forbearance of their right to seek redress of an infringement in a court of law in exchange for some other form of consideration.
Common contracts law claim settlements include covenants not to sue. A covenant not to sue is similar to a release, except that it does not include the sacrifice of the right to pursue recuperation for perceived infractions by legal means.
In the event that the party that gave up their ability to sue for compensation as the consideration into the covenant believes the other party is in violation of the terms of the covenant, they are not prevented from filing a suit claiming both a breach of the original contract as well as the covenant. Unlike releases and accord and satisfactions, covenants not to sue do not replace the terms of the original contract. Instead they supplant them.

What Does Uncertain Performance Mean

What Does Uncertain Performance MeanIf a contract is said to lack consideration due to uncertain performance this can mean three different things in business law. Although all three ideas are distinct, each results in an unenforceable contract. The consideration requirement can be met if one of the parties to the contract forfeits their right to purchase their widgets or sell their gizmos to another company. However, illusory promises may result if one of the parties reserves the right to exchange the widgets or gizmos with another company not involved in the contract. If this reservation of rights is present in a contract, the contract becomes unenforceable because it would lack consideration.