4 ms·

This isn't true. Any promise is sufficient for consideration. Cash doesn't actually have to change hands for a contract to be in effect. If this wasn't the cas

This isn't true. Any promise is sufficient for consideration. Cash doesn't actually have to change hands for a contract to be in effect. If this wasn't the case then every single financial futures contract or swap would be null and void. These contracts incur no cash flow on day one. They're merely a promise by one part to pay another based on some event in the future. If your legal theory was true, then one party could simply cancel any losses by voiding the contract as soon as the position moves against them.

judge2020 5y ago
then you would only be able to sue over damages, and with a roof maybe your only damages are the time spent planning and getting the permits to get the roof done, but if TSLA hadn’t even started ripping off the roof then I don’t see what damages you could claim against them (TSLA’s legal team surely weighed the possibility of a class action lawsuit).
- matsemann 5y ago
  The damage is one had a deal to pay X for a roof. If they can't fulfill their end of the deal, the damage is the difference between X and what have to be paid to get what was promised (either from them or a different provider). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_(law)