"In a bilateral contract (a promise for promise) there's no consideration for the promise of A if the return promise of B is illusory in nature. The contract is unenforceable: A had a free way out, B was tied and bound without any definite guarantee of consideration."
I've had to study this particular gem about 20 times in the last 3 years and the deeper moral implications only just occurred to me. It's an interesting little piece of Dogma, isn't it? I don't quite know what to think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment