市場營銷畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯-其他專業(yè)-文庫吧
2024-12-30 11:02 本頁面
【正文】 omissory could make a binding written promise, even without consideration, by affixing his wax seal to the writing. But as the wax seal was replaced by a penned or printed imitation, the seal became an empty formality and its effectiveness has now been eliminated or at least greatly diminished by state statutes. Consideration is essentially something for which the promisor has bargained and which he has received in exchange for his own promise. It may be another promise given in return, in which case the resulting contract is known as a bilateral contract, or it may be an act given in return, in which case the resulting contract is known as unilateral contract. But , for example, a gratuitous promise, including one to pay for goods or services which have already supported by consideration. Fortunately there are only a few such instances of business promises in which the requirement of consideration is not met. One of the most troublesome involves the “firm”, or irrevocable, offer. The usual rule in the United States is that an offeror has the power to revoke his offer at any time before its acceptance by the offeree, and a promise by the offeror not to revoke is not generally effective unless supported by consideration. A mon device for holding the offeror to his promise is the payment to him of a nominal sum, for example one dollar, as consideration for what is then known as an “option.” Even without consideration a few courts have held that the offeror was estopped, or precluded, from revoking his offer where the offeree relied to his detriment upon the promise. But the most satisfactory solution has been through legislation, adopted in a number of states, making an offer irrevocable, regardless of consideration, if it is embodied in a signed writing which states that it is irrevocable. As this suggests, the tendency has been to attempt to remedy the deficiencies of the doctrine of consideration rather than to discard it. In the United States, contracts, like statutes, are characteristically detailed and prolix. Those prepared by lawyers are often pounded of standard clauses, popularly known as “boilerplate,” taken from other agreements kept on file or from books. Even when a lawyer is not directly involved, the parties may use or incorporate by reference a standard printed form which has been drafted by a lawyer, perhaps for a particular enterprise, perhaps for an association of enterprises, or perhaps for sale to the general public. This attention to detail may be due to a number of causes, including the standardization of routine transactions, the frequent involvement of lawyers in all stages of exceptional transactions, the inclination to use language which has been tested in previous controversies, and the desire to avoid uncertainty when the law of more than one state may be involved. All of these add to the general disposition of the caseoriented American lawyer to provide expressly for specific disputes which have arisen in the past or which might be foreseen in the future. A related phenomenon is the widespread use of standard forms “contracts of adhesion,” such as tickets, leases, and retail sales contracts, which are forced upon the party with inferior bargaining power. In recent years, courts and legislatures have bee increasingly concerned with the effects which unrestrained freedom of contract may have in such situations. Courts which had always refused to enforce agreements contemplating crimes, torts, or other acts which were clearly contrary to the public interest, began, under the guise of interpreting the contracts, to favor the weaker party and in extreme cases to deny effect to terms dictated by one party even where the subject of the agreement was not in itself unlawful. Legislatures enacted st
高考資料相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1