掃碼下載APP
及時(shí)接收最新考試資訊及
備考信息
安卓版本:8.7.30 蘋果版本:8.7.30
開發(fā)者:北京正保會(huì)計(jì)科技有限公司
應(yīng)用涉及權(quán)限:查看權(quán)限>
APP隱私政策:查看政策>
HD版本上線:點(diǎn)擊下載>
Grove is seeking to avoid performing a promise to pay Brook $1,500. Grove is relying on lack of consideration on Brook's part. Grove will prevail if he can establish that:
a. Prior to Grove's promise, Brook had already performed the requested act.
b. Brook's asserted consideration is only worth $400.
c. Brook's only claim of consideration was the relinquishment of a legal right.
d. The consideration to be performed by Brook will be performed by a third party.
Explanation
Choice "a" is correct. A contract generally must be supported by valid consideration. Valid consideration will be present if there is a bargained for exchange of something of legal value. If the act promised has already been performed, the bargain element fails. Thus, it is said that past consideration is no consideration.
Choice "c" is incorrect. A contract generally must be supported by valid consideration. Relinquishment of a legal right constitutes something of legal value. Thus, this is not a good defense for Grove.
Choice "b" is incorrect. As long as the consideration is not a sham, the courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration exchanged. $400 is not sham consideration; thus, the large disparity in value of the consideration exchanged here is not a defense.
Choice "d" is incorrect. The benefits of a contract need not flow to the parties to constitute consideration, the mere giving of a benefit or receipt of a detriment is sufficient.
思維導(dǎo)圖
學(xué)習(xí)計(jì)劃
科目特點(diǎn)
報(bào)考指南
歷年樣卷
財(cái)會(huì)英語(yǔ)
安卓版本:8.7.30 蘋果版本:8.7.30
開發(fā)者:北京正保會(huì)計(jì)科技有限公司
應(yīng)用涉及權(quán)限:查看權(quán)限>
APP隱私政策:查看政策>
HD版本上線:點(diǎn)擊下載>
官方公眾號(hào)
微信掃一掃
官方視頻號(hào)
微信掃一掃
官方抖音號(hào)
抖音掃一掃
Copyright © 2000 - m.galtzs.cn All Rights Reserved. 北京正保會(huì)計(jì)科技有限公司 版權(quán)所有
京B2-20200959 京ICP備20012371號(hào)-7 出版物經(jīng)營(yíng)許可證 京公網(wǎng)安備 11010802044457號(hào)