5 ms·

"We won't sue you", however, is not consideration.

by __jal 10y ago

PeterisP 10y ago
I wouldn't be so sure - for example, out of court settlements pretty much amount to "We'll pay you $x without admitting that we ever did something wrong, and you agree not to sue us over that thing that we totally did not do.", and these definitely are valid contracts.
- idbehold 10y ago
  Not suing in that case is the terms of the contract. The consideration is $x for party A and for party B it's not having to admit wrongdoing. Had the NDA in question given William $x to not disclose the security hole then he would certainly would be in breach of contract. But the NDA gave him nothing.
  - fulldecent 10y ago
    When they were drafting the "contract", the concept of consideration was very interesting. I had considered that if I would receive cash for agreeing to not disclose then this would be blackmail which apparently is bad.
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  Obtaining an opposing party's waiver of their right to pursue legal remedies is not the same thing as obtaining non-binding indication that they may not pursue you legally. In the first case you have extinguished a right that could be used against you. In the second case you have obtained nothing more than the illusion of safety.
sjy 10y ago
It is, especially (but not necessarily) if the person promising not to sue has a valid claim. This is covered in any contract law textbook, but it's an old common law principle so there are plenty of free online sources, too. For example, in the US, see Bennett, 'Forbearance to Sue' (1898) 10(2) Harvard Law Review 113–118 [1]; in the UK, see Kelly, 'Forbearance to Sue and Forbearance to Defend' (1964) 27(5) Modern Law Review 540–545 [2]. [1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321438 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321438 [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964.tb02241.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964....

5 ms·

"We won't sue you", however, is not consideration.

by __jal 10y ago

"We won't sue you", however, is not consideration.

PeterisP 10y ago
I wouldn't be so sure - for example, out of court settlements pretty much amount to "We'll pay you $x without admitting that we ever did something wrong, and you agree not to sue us over that thing that we totally did not do.", and these definitely are valid contracts.
- idbehold 10y ago
  Not suing in that case is the terms of the contract. The consideration is $x for party A and for party B it's not having to admit wrongdoing. Had the NDA in question given William $x to not disclose the security hole then he would certainly would be in breach of contract. But the NDA gave him nothing.
  - fulldecent 10y ago
    When they were drafting the "contract", the concept of consideration was very interesting. I had considered that if I would receive cash for agreeing to not disclose then this would be blackmail which apparently is bad.
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  Obtaining an opposing party's waiver of their right to pursue legal remedies is not the same thing as obtaining non-binding indication that they may not pursue you legally. In the first case you have extinguished a right that could be used against you. In the second case you have obtained nothing more than the illusion of safety.
sjy 10y ago
It is, especially (but not necessarily) if the person promising not to sue has a valid claim. This is covered in any contract law textbook, but it's an old common law principle so there are plenty of free online sources, too. For example, in the US, see Bennett, 'Forbearance to Sue' (1898) 10(2) Harvard Law Review 113–118 [1]; in the UK, see Kelly, 'Forbearance to Sue and Forbearance to Defend' (1964) 27(5) Modern Law Review 540–545 [2]. [1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321438 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321438 [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964.tb02241.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964....