Consideration is simple. contracts are a bipartisan street. One side benefits along with the other side. If merely one benefits. the contract is unenforceable. There are three regulations of consideration: 1 ) both parties must acquire something of comparable existent value. 2 ) A promise of value is a contract that counts as consideration. 3 ) Both parties have agreed on an agreement and have a trade ( Beatty. Samuelson. & A ; Bredeson. 2008 ) Value means that both parties get something from the other ; it can be an act or patience.
An act is when something is done that the party was non lawfully required to make. whereas patience is something that the party has a legal right to make and agrees non to. There is non valid consideration in the instance of Kim v. Son. Son concerns were corporations that Kim had invested $ 170. 000 in. When these concerns failed. Son felt guilty over Kim’s losingss. The two work forces had been imbibing to a great extent and Son promised with his blood that he would pay back the money. Because this involves corporate minutess. Son is non personally apt for any debt that the concerns occur.
Kim is out the money he invested ; now Son can experience guilty because of the investing that Kim lost. but is under no duty to refund the money. This is a instance of one acquiring the benefit and one losing which is non how consideration is described. Both parties agreed to a promise of paying Kim back on his investing. this is an act that they were non lawfully required to make. Kim has agreed to non action Son ab initio. and looking at the fortunes he has no right to. Investings are hazardous ; a party can do money on their investing merely every bit easy as they can lose it.
And in this peculiar instance. Kim lost his $ 170. 000. The Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) . as defined in the Free Financial Dictionary is “a set of statures regulating the behavior of concern. gross revenues. guarantees. negotiable instruments. loans secured by personal belongings. and other commercial affairs. which has been adopted with minor fluctuations by all provinces except Louisiana” . Common Law. as described in The Free Financial Dictionary is “a jurisprudence derived from common use. antediluvian imposts. or the dictums and readings of tribunals.
Contrast with codification jurisprudence. or civil jurisprudence. which relies on statutory passages for the articulation of rights and duties. and so judicial reading of those statures. ” In the instance of Kim v. Son. I believe the Uniform Commercial Code was used. Anyone can assure non to action. but at that place has to be a sensible ground to action in the first topographic point. It is non right for Kim to action as this was an investing on Kim’s portion. something that could hold made him money and so once more lose it.
Investings are slightly like chancing in that a individual is anticipating to derive something. and there is no manner that they know how it will turn out. Most investors do some research about the concerns first to see what they can anticipate. A lesson can be learned from this instance. If you invest in a concern. there is no certain manner to financially break yourself. Writing in blood can be legal but there has to be consideration of which there was none in this instance. A corporation may non be sued as if it was a individual. Intoxication. although it was evident in this state of affairs. may non be the best defence.