4 ms·
In any event it is a vestigial requirement in most US jurisdictions. Under the majority rule nominal consideration (i.e. $1) is sufficient, and courts won't loo
by bradleyjg 11y ago
In any event it is a vestigial requirement in most US jurisdictions. Under the majority rule nominal consideration (i.e. $1) is sufficient, and courts won't look behind a declaration in the contract that it was tendered. So it is yet another boilerplate paragraph is added to every well drafted contract and that's that (again in most jurisdictions).
- LoSboccacc 11y agoBut, as far as I understand it, you still have to sign it or accept the 1$
- bradleyjg 11y agoYes, you have to sign in order to form a valid contract.+ But that's a different part of contract doctrine than consideration. I'd argue consideration is a mostly vestigial doctrine, but contract formalities aren't. In this case, I believe the employee signed, but then tried to argue the contract was invalid for lack of consideration. I don't know if there was nominal consideration recited or not, or what the Hawaiian rule on that is. + Well ... not necessarily sign, but an objective manifestation of intent to be bound, which most of the time means sign.