Basic legal things everyone should know

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and you cannot really bury things in the fine print. I am a bit fuzzy on what is considered incorrigible, but if a judge finds something in the contract incorrigible I believe that is grounds for the wronged (duped) party to void the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP - nice thread idea. The above quoted is something I've always wondered about. For example, my friend (a lawyer) is working on a pro bono case representing subprime borrowers who recently defaulted on their mortgages. The contention is that the subprime borrowers (not native English speakers, mainly Hispanic) were grossly misled concerning their mortgage payment levels, and the actual structure of the debt.

Let's assume the actual terms were "buried" within the contract but extant somehow. My gut says the borrower in this case should be accountable for reading the contract and understanding it... but I guess not?

-Al

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, agreed that there are hardly ANY 100% sure things in the murky waters of the law, but it's more than "it depends." The vast majority of the time, nominal consideration is sufficient, and as your quote mentions, it would have to be adjudged that the consideration was just a sham or pretense, etc.

[Hank Scorpio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 enforceable 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the exact thing he typed, so I don't see how he is "mostly wrong." I can't stand people who try their hardest to disagree with someone, so annoying.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and you cannot really bury things in the fine print. I am a bit fuzzy on what is considered incorrigible, but if a judge finds something in the contract incorrigible I believe that is grounds for the wronged (duped) party to void the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP - nice thread idea. The above quoted is something I've always wondered about. For example, my friend (a lawyer) is working on a pro bono case representing subprime borrowers who recently defaulted on their mortgages. The contention is that the subprime borrowers (not native English speakers, mainly Hispanic) were grossly misled concerning their mortgage payment levels, and the actual structure of the debt.

Let's assume the actual terms were "buried" within the contract but extant somehow. My gut says the borrower in this case should be accountable for reading the contract and understanding it... but I guess not?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, people who enter contracts are imputed to have read and understood the language of the contract... but not always. There are equitable remedies available to set aside the contract (sometimes)... if the contract was "unconscionable," or if there was a severe disparity in bargaining position, etc.

To counter these possibilities, however, a lot of today's contracts have broad "I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CONTRACT AND I HAVE CONSULTED WITH MY ATTORNEY" language that the parties have everyone initial, so it's much harder to contend you didn't know what you were signing.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 enforceable 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the exact thing he typed, so I don't see how he is "mostly wrong." I can't stand people who try their hardest to disagree with someone, so annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

His post originally said "unforable," which I took to mean "unenforceable," which was wrong. Now, it's right.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this one could go either way. It depends on what the waiver says and how grossly negligent the facility is, etc. As a general rule, however, you definitely can "sign away your rights."

[En Passant]

DrewDevil, I'm assuming you're an attorney. What do you think about this hypothetical...

John signs a contract to work for Company A, and faxes over a copy. The contract does not have a signature of an employee working for Company A. Before an employee from Company A has the chance to send John a copy of the contract with their signature, John sends another copy of the the contract with the word "VOID" written on it, trying to get out of the contract..

Can John be held to this contract even though Company A did not sign it?

I am basically asking... do both parties have to sign the contract in order to make it valid? Or can it be accepted with just the signature of John?

Note: I don't know the answer to this.

[Los Feliz Slim]

Not sure about other states, but in California non-compete agreements are very difficult to enforce. California wants you working, and doesn't want other people to prevent you from being able to do so. If you think you're stuck at your current company because of a non-compete, talk to an attorney.

[eviljeff]

depends on when the parties intended the agreement would be complete.

there are two ways of looking at it:

John made an offer and rescinded it before the co. accepted.
Co. made an offer and John accepted, then tried to back out.

[En Passant]

[ QUOTE ]
depends on when the parties intended the agreement would be complete.

there are two ways of looking at it:

John made an offer and rescinded it before the co. accepted.
Co. made an offer and John accepted, then tried to back out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please explain how John's signing of the contract could be viewed as an offer.