不止一个侧风:对英联邦合同法中对价要求的再思考

F. Gélinas, Zackary Goldford
{"title":"不止一个侧风:对英联邦合同法中对价要求的再思考","authors":"F. Gélinas, Zackary Goldford","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2021.2008137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the common law tradition, it has long been the case that a contract not backed by consideration is no contract at all. But this rule has been slowly washed away in various contexts, especially contract modifications, in various Commonwealth jurisdictions. In response to these developments, we argue that the consideration requirement has outlived its purpose and that it is time for it to be formally retired. We identify its purpose as ensuring fairness, voluntariness, and the integrity of consent, and we demonstrate that a collection of doctrinal tools have become increasingly available in recent years to fulfil this purpose. We conclude by discussing some of the harms that the consideration requirement causes. Since it does no good and causes some harm, it is time for it to go.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More than a side-wind: rethinking the consideration requirement in Commonwealth contract law\",\"authors\":\"F. Gélinas, Zackary Goldford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2021.2008137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In the common law tradition, it has long been the case that a contract not backed by consideration is no contract at all. But this rule has been slowly washed away in various contexts, especially contract modifications, in various Commonwealth jurisdictions. In response to these developments, we argue that the consideration requirement has outlived its purpose and that it is time for it to be formally retired. We identify its purpose as ensuring fairness, voluntariness, and the integrity of consent, and we demonstrate that a collection of doctrinal tools have become increasingly available in recent years to fulfil this purpose. We conclude by discussing some of the harms that the consideration requirement causes. Since it does no good and causes some harm, it is time for it to go.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.2008137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.2008137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在普通法传统中,长期以来,没有对价支持的合同根本不是合同。但这一规则在各种情况下,尤其是在英联邦司法管辖区的合同修改中,已经慢慢被废除。针对这些事态发展,我们认为,对价要求已经超过了其目的,现在是正式退休的时候了。我们将其目的确定为确保公平、自愿和同意的完整性,并证明近年来越来越多的理论工具可用于实现这一目的。最后,我们讨论了对价要求造成的一些危害。既然它没有好处,也会造成一些伤害,现在是时候让它走了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
More than a side-wind: rethinking the consideration requirement in Commonwealth contract law
ABSTRACT In the common law tradition, it has long been the case that a contract not backed by consideration is no contract at all. But this rule has been slowly washed away in various contexts, especially contract modifications, in various Commonwealth jurisdictions. In response to these developments, we argue that the consideration requirement has outlived its purpose and that it is time for it to be formally retired. We identify its purpose as ensuring fairness, voluntariness, and the integrity of consent, and we demonstrate that a collection of doctrinal tools have become increasingly available in recent years to fulfil this purpose. We conclude by discussing some of the harms that the consideration requirement causes. Since it does no good and causes some harm, it is time for it to go.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1