English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This was delivered to the count, and four days later the marriage took place. For ten years the payment was made, and the present suit was brought to recover the eleventh annual instalment. The plaintiff sues as assignee of both the daughter Blanche and her husband. The court holds that there was sufficient consideration for the defendant's promise, thus agreeing with Shadwell v. Shadwell. Some of the inferior courts of New York have failed to recognize the general distinctions between bilateral and unilateral contracts, speaking of the latter as if they were not contracts at all but were mere unenforceable unilateral promises, void for want of acceptance and consideration. In the present case the Court of Appeals makes no such mistake. The contract is plainly described as "unilateral," and the defendant's promise is enforced because the acts of acceptance constituted a sufficient consideration. Neither the count nor the defendant's daughter made any promise, and the court assumes that the contract became binding upon the defendant only when the marriage was celebrated. This decision deserves extended comment because the opinion by Mr. Justice Cardozo shows a clear understanding of a unilateral contract and familiarity with the best literature on the subject in both books and periodicals, because the decision is correct in principle and in policy, and because it very probably will be a starting point in the reversal of a large number of decisions and in the abandonment of a

Does a Pre-Existing Duty Defeat Consideration?. Recent Noteworthy Decisions