“To recap: Part I of this series provided an overview of my reasons for thinking that no court should have enforced the alleged promise at issue in Hamer. Part II reviewed Douglas Baird’s detailed reconstruction of the facts of the case. Part III was a frivolous digression into the difficulty of refraining from cursing once one has acquired the habit of cursing. Part IV defended the holding of the case that a legal detriment is required for an act of forbearance to qualify as consideration. In today’s final post on this subject, I defend the legal doctrine on policy grounds …” (more)
[Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog, 2 October]
First posted 2020-10-11 10:48:12
Leave a Reply