Basic legal things everyone should know

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I say I am going to give you half of my cash if I win the wsop me this year, I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is not true. Its called a "unilateral contract" and it is enforceable. At least so said my business law class in college.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has to be at least nominal consideration or a substitute for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was lied to!!!

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you were drunk at the time you entered a contract, you can probably void it if you can prove it. I am a bit fuzzy on exactly what the requirements to void a contract by this mechanism are.

[/ QUOTE ]

A contract is unforable if you are drunk, unless the other party knows you are drunk and tries to take advantage of you based on that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is mostly wrong.

This is not black and white, but generally speaking, the contract is enforceable against the intoxicated person unless (a) the other party was trying to take advantage of the drunk party or (b) the drunk party was so drunk as to not be aware of what he was doing. Courts are generally not sympathetic to someone who tries to get out of a contract by claiming intoxication.

[Matt Flynn]

- if it's important, read every word yourself

[KurtSF]

The most important thing to know is this:

When dealing with the police your rights don't matter. They will do whatever they want and the courts will support them.

I have a theory that this is really why the show COPS is on TV: to so inure and habituate the public to seeing police officers violate others' rights, that when they violate yours you won't complain. Seriously, I can almost guarantee you will see a cop break the law in a 30 minute episode of that show.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I say I am going to give you half of my cash if I win the wsop me this year, I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is not true. Its called a "unilateral contract" and it is enforceable. At least so said my business law class in college.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has to be at least nominal consideration or a substitute for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was lied to!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, a unilateral contract is the exchange of a promise for performance, and a bilateral contract is the exchange of a promise for a promise. Both require consideration (a bargained-for exchange).

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
The most important thing to know is this:

When dealing with the police your rights don't matter. They will do whatever they want and the courts will support them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, that's really not true. Someone's lied to you again.

Agree that cops routinely violate rights and break the law, but disagree that they always get away with it and that the courts just rubber-stamp their lawlessness. Not so, not so.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I say I am going to give you half of my cash if I win the wsop me this year, I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is not true. Its called a "unilateral contract" and it is enforceable. At least so said my business law class in college.

Edit - was I lied to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether a contract is unilateral or bilateral is a function of how the contract is accepted and performed, not whether there is consideration.

You should know what you're talking about before making snarky comments like "I stopped reading here." You weren't lied to, you probably just weren't paying attention.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong; consideration does not fail because of a disparity between items exchanged. Nominal consideration (one dollar, a peppercorn, a hawk's feather, etc.) has been upheld time and time again.

[/ QUOTE ]

but not always...

"Disparity in value, with or without other circumstances, sometimes indicates that the purported consideration was not in fact bargained for but was a mere formality or pretense. Such a sham or 'nominal' consideration does not satisfy the requirement of § 71." Restat 2d of Contracts, § 79.

"In consideration of one cent received, A promises to pay $ 600 in three yearly installments of $ 200 each. The one cent is merely nominal and is not consideration for A's promise." Restat 2d of Contracts, § 79.

The answer, of course, is "it depends."

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]


promissory estoppel protects someone who reasonably relies on a promise. for example, Company A decides to generously offer a lifelong pension to Bob for his previous years of hard service. Bob quits. 10 years later, board at A changes and decides to stop paying Bob because there's no contract. promissory estoppel applies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

you need to have detrimental reliance in order for promissory estoppel to work. you need to show that Bob detrimentally relied on something like this. also, statutes of frauds will come in to play here, as will the fact that the consideration is based upon past work. also, you are asking for something in equity so who knows what will happen there.

the bottom line from these examples is to get stuff in writing and have a lawyer involved if it is any sort of a big deal. there are so many ways stuff can bite you in the ass.

[jeffnc]

It will probably be obvious that IANAL with the language I use, but another concept I found interesting when I looked into it at one time is something that some people describe as "you can't sign away your rights." Let's say I'm playing in a basketball league or some other sport at some indoor facility. They make you sign a waiver that means they're not responsible if you get injured. Yes, you take a reasonable risk when you play, but you also have paid money to play and must assume the facility is at some standard of safety. Let's say for example that someone forgot to attach the basket to the backboard and it's just sitting there on the bolts with no nuts attached. You go up for a layup and the basket comes off and hits you in the noggin. That's not a normal injury to happen in that sport, and the facility is still liable regardless of the waiver you signed.