4 ms·

"the 'damages' of breaking the contract is equal to the 'consideration' of fulfilling the contract" This is categorically incorrect. Damages for breach of con

"the 'damages' of breaking the contract is equal to the 'consideration' of fulfilling the contract" This is categorically incorrect. Damages for breach of contract are supposed to put you back in the position you'd have been in had the contract been performed. It's not related to the value of the consideration. Consideration is one of the things needed to make a contract binding in English law (along with offer & acceptance, and "intention to create legal relations"). Jurists still debate the rationale for consideration, but the best answer I've found is that contract in English law is seen as an exchange or a “bargain”. There is no gratuitous contract, donations are not contractual right. By comparison, a contract under French law is based on "consent of the parties" and the theory of individual autonomy. There's no requirement for consideration. In a "mutual NDA", consideration is easy to find; each party agrees not to disclose confidential information disclosed by the counterparty. Another way to make an agreement binding without consideration is to sign it as a deed. https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/anneprudhomme/entry/consequences_of_illegal/ https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/anneprudhomme/entry/consequences...

jdmichal 9y ago
> In a "mutual NDA", consideration is easy to find; each party agrees not to disclose confidential information disclosed by the counterparty. I don't think mutual NDAs are typical. Typically, you sign an NDA prior to receiving information. So the consideration for signing the NDA is receiving the information that you agreed to not disclose. If you already have that information, then that's no longer valid consideration. In this case, the reporter already knew the security vulnerability, so that knowledge could not be considered consideration. The bank would have needed to offer something else.

jdmichal 9y ago

> In a "mutual NDA", consideration is easy to find; each party agrees not to disclose confidential information disclosed by the counterparty. I don't think mutual NDAs are typical. Typically, you sign an NDA prior to receiving information. So the consideration for signing the NDA is receiving the information that you agreed to not disclose. If you already have that information, then that's no longer valid consideration. In this case, the reporter already knew the security vulnerability, so that knowledge could not be considered consideration. The bank would have needed to offer something else.