pray for me

Dec 03, 2006 21:34

use of section 139 of the second restatement of contracts is highly controversial and courts generally refuse to use it, because they will hold that reliance on an oral contract the falls under the statute of frauds is not reasonable. under this section, where an oral contract foreseeably induces reasonable reliance, the contract may be enforced ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 2

beatonbeatoff December 4 2006, 16:23:22 UTC
We're going to have to drink a little bit next week to make up for your having to wade through this rubbish.

Reply


big_chief_47 December 4 2006, 18:07:18 UTC
that is a clear, definite and explicit statement made with the intent to contract (anayzed by words, conduct and circumstances as viewed by a reasonable person in the position of the offeree.) you have created in me the power of acceptance. i accept. assuming you bargained for a return promise, my acceptance is effective when communicated actually or effectively. my return promise serves as consideration (which is what is bargained for.) we have a binding bilateral contract.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up