For many political reasons, the courts will apply certain types of promises, even if there is no quid pro quo. Some of them are governed by the Single Code of Trade (UCC); others are part of the established common law. Consideration consists of two elements. The first, as we have just said, is whether the promised person has suffered legal harm – has given up something, paid a “price”, whereas, for example, it may be the promise to do something, like painting a house. (Some courts – although a minority – believe that a negotiated legal benefit is sufficient for the promisor.) The second element is whether the legal disadvantage has been negotiated: does the promisor expressly intend to act, leniency or promise in return for its promise? If we apply this two-track test to the three examples cited at the beginning of the chapter, we can easily understand why, in the second case, it is sufficiently taken into account only from a legal point of view. In the first case, Lou suffered no legal harm; he did not commit to act or act, he did not really act or departed from the dramatic art. In the third example, what appears to be such a promise is not really the case. Betty made a promise on the condition that Lou come to her house; the intention is clearly to make a gift. Some promises that might otherwise be used as a consideration are invalidated by the Promisor for a number of reasons, including childhood, fraud, coercion or error. But a cancelled contract is not automatically invalidated, and if the coder has not avoided the contract, but then renews its promise, it is binding. For example, Mr. Melvin sells his bike to 13-year-old Seth. Seth promises to pay Mr.

Melvin a hundred dollars. Seth can refuse the contract, but he doesn`t. When he was eighteen, he renewed his promise to pay the hundred dollars. This promise is binding. (A promise made up to its 18th century would not, however, be binding, as it would always have been minor.) The courts do not consider the adequacy of the consideration, but ask the promiseor (with a few exceptions) for a legal infringement (the abandonment of a right he holds – to give up something) in order to obtain the negotiated benefit. The abandonment of the right of appeal is a legal disadvantage and the question arises when analyzing different types of dispute settlement agreements (agreement and satisfaction): the obligation to pay the full amount that a creditor claims for a liquidated debt, an unscathed debt and a disputed debt. If unforeseen difficulties arise, a debtor is entitled to additional compensation (counterparty) to resolve it, either because the contract is amended or because the parties have entered into a reorganization, but there is no additional consideration to be expected for someone who fulfills an existing obligation or who must fulfill the obligations he or she has under a legal obligation not to be met. If a promisor makes an illusory promise, it gives no consideration and no contract is concluded; but exclusive trade agreements, needs contracts and production contracts are not considered illusory. At the time of the robbery, the complainants, Murrell Denney, Joyce Buis, Rebecca McCollum and Jewell Snyder were employees of the First State Bank of Eubank.

They were required to protect and preserve the Bank`s resources and funds and to protect all the interests of the institution that provided them with jobs. Each of these employees showed great courage and cold courage in an era of stress and danger. The community and the county have compensated them with praise, admiration and praise, and the world considers them heroes.