With the case of Kim v. Son the document that Stephen Son made at the sushi restaurant over drinks by using his own blood to compose the document lacks consideration. For the document to have consideration Stephen Son and Jinsoo Kim needed to produce a document that had a valid exchange between the two parties. Consideration is composed of two basic elements, value and exchange which decide whether the consideration is valid or not (Beatty & Samuelson, 2013).
To have value, both parties must get something of value from the contract that is able to be measured (Beatty & Samuelson, 2013). In the case of Kim v. Son, Son was not getting anything from the contract of measurable value. Son was going to try to repay Kim back the money that …show more content…
Both parties need to have bargained for whatever was being exchanged and struck a deal (Beatty & Samuelson, 2013). In the case of Kim v. Son there was no exchange. Son felt responsible for Kim losing the funds he invested in the two corporations that Son was part owner and operator in. Kim added to the deal that he would not sue Son in exchange for repayment of what he invested. Son did not need the added input from Kim, he already felt guilty about Kim losing his investment and stated he would try to repay him. The case of Kim v. Son lacked valid …show more content…
With common law any change to an offer is a rejection of that offer and creates a new offer between the two parties (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts, 2015). When the counter offer creates a new offer it also changes who the initial offeree was to now the offeror and when modification of a contract occurs the contract now requires consideration from both parties (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts, 2015). Common law requires a description on the quantity, price, performance time, nature of work and identity of an offer to be part of a valid contract (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts,
To have value, both parties must get something of value from the contract that is able to be measured (Beatty & Samuelson, 2013). In the case of Kim v. Son, Son was not getting anything from the contract of measurable value. Son was going to try to repay Kim back the money that …show more content…
Both parties need to have bargained for whatever was being exchanged and struck a deal (Beatty & Samuelson, 2013). In the case of Kim v. Son there was no exchange. Son felt responsible for Kim losing the funds he invested in the two corporations that Son was part owner and operator in. Kim added to the deal that he would not sue Son in exchange for repayment of what he invested. Son did not need the added input from Kim, he already felt guilty about Kim losing his investment and stated he would try to repay him. The case of Kim v. Son lacked valid …show more content…
With common law any change to an offer is a rejection of that offer and creates a new offer between the two parties (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts, 2015). When the counter offer creates a new offer it also changes who the initial offeree was to now the offeror and when modification of a contract occurs the contract now requires consideration from both parties (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts, 2015). Common law requires a description on the quantity, price, performance time, nature of work and identity of an offer to be part of a valid contract (Overview of UCC Contracts and Common Law Contracts,