Talk:Consideration under American law

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger[edit]

This Article should be merged with Consideration under English law under the title consideration.

Someone needs to distinguish mutuality from consideration. For ex, in an option contract mutuality is not required unless the want of mutuality precludes consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Where did this text come from? Toward the end it says "Williams v Roffey will be discussed further below." Clearly this needs to be revised but it begs the question whether this whole text has been lifted from a textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.188.71 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for exceptions to the consideration requirement[edit]

I added a citation needed tag to the claim that charitable pledges are enforceable without consideration as contracts under seal. This seems contrary to the promissory estoppel doctrine, which seems to deal with the same situation differently. Thoughts or clarifications? --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a citation to prove that charitable pledges are enforceable at all. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seals are generally without effect under American law (unlike some other common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong where they eliminate the need for consideration). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_%28contract_law%29

This page is pretty embarrassing[edit]

Wow guys. I'm an attorney and this page was pretty embarrassing. If I was teaching a law school class on contracts and someone defined consideration like this, I would flunk them in a heartbeat, and if I was a judge, I would kick that attorney out of the courtroom. Please keep legal articles succinct, to the point, organized, and accurate. If you want to get into exceptions, fine. But, you have to lay the foundation before you paint the embellishments on the windows frames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.126.71 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone finds some of the old content helpful, please restore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consideration&oldid=266057308 --Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalisation of consideration pages[edit]

There are currently at least three pages on this topic, with some inevitable overlaps. They are this page Consideration under American law, plus Consideration under English law and Consideration . I suggest that the Consideration page becomes a much shorter summary page, with directions to the other two, which then survive with improvements. The "Consideration under English law" page needs a lot of work! (I'll post a version of this message on the other pages). Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]