Got it.
Yes, they could repossess the furniture. In that case ownership belongs to the store, not your friend. And he used the goods as collateral for the landlord. The landlord is left holding the bag -- well, not exactly. He (the landlord) lost $8000. Your friend was a thief. :meh:

I think Caldwell has got it. But it depends on the CC agreement. If the CC company retains title, then the furniture is theirs to come and get - it belongs to them. If not, Landlords typically cannot just take abandoned furniture. There are some statutory notice and storage requirements. And if he's defaulted on his lease, remedies would be as set by the lease, or per local law. Some leases accelerate the total amount of the lease. Other leases just forfeit the deposit. I think in any case the landlord has the option of pursuing damages. Bottom line, the devil is in the details. What do the agreements say? And notwithstanding obtaining judgment, if the defendant stays out-of-state, enforcement becomes a problem. As to the $8000 loan, same business. Although since the claim was a lie, maybe criminal fraud kicks in.

Or the store and the landlord sell the debt to some leg-breakers, and they collect or they break legs. Do you know how it all worked out?

Barty baiting. Tedious. Go away. — Bartricks

Not at all, Just asking for workable definitions or understandings of terms. The which, if you knew what you w re talking about or had given it enough thought, you would probably have provided up front, the way it's dome when it's done the way it's supposed to be done.

As per the landlord, no. My friend got married, then divorced. Then returned to Canada and has a clean credit history, no criminal record, and works for the government. Go figure eh.

Go figure eh. — Book273

Wow.

As per the landlord, no. My friend got married, then divorced. Then returned to Canada and has a clean credit history, no criminal record, and works for the government. Go figure eh. — Book273

That could be a reporting problem. Until recently and probably even now if you commit a minor crime here and move there, or if you have outstanding warrants here, the police there may have no way to know about it. If it was store credit and they did not report it, then that went nowhere. And if the landlord didn't pursue, then that also went nowhere. Probably defaulting on the lease is not a big deal. But finally, what happened to the furniture? Just a rhetorical question because likely the store took it back. And in back of this is the question of insurance against loss, if anyone was carrying any. And to be sure the furniture may have had residual value a small fraction of its retail value.

So you can unilaterally amend a contract in Dutch Land, without a provision therefor in the agreement? How's about you just say "Hey, I'm not going to pay. But thanks for building this house for me." Is that how you do it over there? No, it's not. I don't care how long you've practiced law in the Neverlands. You have offer, acceptance and consideration. The Dutch aren't stupid. — James Riley

Wow, you're a terrible lawyer who can't read and apparently doesn't know how it's works in your own jurisdiction. I didn't say there was a unilateral amendment. I said there's no consideration. The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for. That it turns out more difficult is neither here nor there with respect to consideration. So the other party agreeing to pay more is not an enforceable contract under UK law or US law. Still, quite a common occurrence.

Help this Anglo-Saxon dummy from America: If you offer to give me a gift and I agree to accept it, then what contract is there to enforce? Unless and until there is detrimental reliance (i.e. consideration) then there is no valid contract. I suspect you don't know what you are talking about. :roll: — James Riley

For the umpteenth time. Other jurisdictions don't require consideration for a valid and enforceable contract - yes, that's not a contract under Anglo-Saxon law, no, we don't care because those laws don't apply here. Stop projecting the shit system you have in the US.

It's not even as if consideration hasn't been questioned for years already within your own legal system as messy and outdated. Plenty of scholars who argue in the US that a clear intent to be bound by the terms by one party and detrimental reliance on the part of the other party should be sufficient - mostly because half of your judges are shit and don't apply the doctrine of consideration correctly to begin with. And you'd know that if you were still active in the field.

I really don't get what's so difficult to grasp here. Different countries, different rules.

For the umpteenth time. — Benkei

For the umpteenth time, you failed to provide an example. That is because you don't know what you are talking about. If you disagree, then all you have to do is give a simple example. Here, let me help you get started. I assume we can agree that it takes at least two parties to agree. One party is "A" and the other party is "B". "A" offers. What does "A" offer? Help me out here. "B" accepts. What did "B" accept? Did he accept something for nothing? Or did he accept something for something? You take it from there. I'll wait.

Other jurisdictions don't require consideration for a valid and enforceable contract - — Benkei

I'll wait. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract.

Plenty of scholars who argue in the US that a clear intent to be bound by the terms by one party and detrimental reliance on the part of the other party should be sufficient - — Benkei

I already taught you about detrimental reliance. That can occur in gift or contract. So don't start trying to pull yourself out of the hole you dug by now admitting you have learned, while at the same time denying it.

I really don't get what's so difficult to grasp here. Different countries, different rules. — Benkei

I'll wait.

Look, if you people call a horse a cow, then okay, we have a definitional issue. You can call a table a contract if you want.

I didn't say there was a unilateral amendment. I said there's no consideration. — Benkei

But if there is no unilateral amendment, then there IS consideration. DOH! It takes at least two to agree, two to contract. Consideration is what they agree to exchange. If there is no unilateral amendment, then what was given or foregone to permit the change in the original agreement? Whatever that was, was the consideration, either as permitted in the original contract, or by amendment.

Now I am about to teach you a lesson, so please pay attention and learn. You said:

The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for. — Benkei

BINGO! That is the consideration! Read your own words again: "The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for." Offer, acceptance, consideration.

So the other party agreeing to pay more is not an enforceable contract under UK law or US law. — Benkei

Yes, it IS. If they AGREE then it is enforceable. If they do not agree, then it is not enforceable. You know why? Because there was no agreement. There was not contract. Gift or contract, your choice.

But I'll await you example of a contract without consideration. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract.

But if there is no unilateral amendment, then there IS consideration. DOH! It takes at least two to agree, two to contract. Consideration is what they agree to exchange. If there is no unilateral amendment, then what was given or foregone to permit the change in the original agreement? Whatever that was, was the consideration, either as permitted in the original contract, or by amendment. — James Riley

Jesus, I'm talking to a lawyer who doesn't even understand the doctrine of consideration while being raised in an Anglo-Saxon country. I'm done.

:up:

There's x and there's what someone could do with x. Both seem critical to justice.

But I'll await you example of a contract without consideration. I'll be particularly interested to see what a court would enforce in this hypothetical, valid, enforceable contract. — James Riley

Quasi-contracts, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit. Is that a sufficient topical reference or do we really need to go down the path of the history of inadequacies of mutually bargained for consideration as the only method by which one party can be obligated to pay the other in the absence of a tort?

And here is random cite in case you need a nudge.

Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Primary tabs
Definition

An obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. Also called a contract implied in law or a constructive contract, a quasi contract may be presumed by a court in the absence of a true contract, but not where a contract—either express or implied in fact—covering the same subject matter already exists.

Because a quasi contract is not a true contract, mutual assent is not necessary, and a court may impose an obligation without regard to the intent of the parties. When a party sues for damages under a quasi-contract, the remedy is typically restitution or recovery under a theory of quantum meruit. Liability is determined on a case-by-case basis. — LII of Cornell

Is that a sufficient topical reference or do we really need to go down the path of the history of inadequacies of mutually bargained for consideration as the only method by which one party can be obligated to pay the other in the absence of a tort? — Ennui Elucidator

Emphasis added. And there you have it. I'd ask you to explain that to Benkei but he is done.

And here is random cite in case you need a nudge.

Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Primary tabs
Definition — Ennui Elucidator

You just made my point. I don't need the nudge. Benkei does.

P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation.

P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation. — James Riley

You already mentioned deterimental reliance, i.e. promissory estoppel, so there was no need to mention it, let alone argue about it. Although both promissory estoppel and quantum meruit have similar origin stories (consideration replacements), only quantum meruit involves enforcing a claim against someone who did not participate in or solicit the behavior of the plaintiff.

In any event, how about "Market Overt" for a more on point reference for purposes of the OP.

In general, the sale of stolen goods does not convey effective title (see Nemo dat quod non habet). However, under 'marché ouvert', if goods were openly sold in designated markets between sunrise and sunset, provenance could not be questioned and effective title of ownership was obtained.[3][4][5] The law originated centuries ago when people did not travel much; if the victim of a theft did not bother to look in his local market on market day—the only place where the goods were likely to be—he was not being suitably diligent.
— Wiki on Market Overt

You already mentioned deterimental reliance, i.e. promissory estoppel, so there was no need to mention it, let alone argue about it. — Ennui Elucidator

Like gift, it was used as a stand-in for all the rest. Meaning, all the rest was not illustrative on the argument about offer-acceptance-consideration. Neither I nor Benkei was talking about the case where there is no agreement (no meeting of the minds).

In any event, how about "Market Overt" for a more on point reference for purposes of the OP. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, it was understood that some people think the burden is upon the victim and some don't.

I'm done. — Benkei

Okay. I'll quit waiting.

Yes, it was understood that some people think the burden is upon the victim and some don't. — James Riley

I got that (and saw your amusing quip about Dutch Colonialism), but it seems at least a little bit instructive to consider the actual history of an idea that supports "losers weepers" with respect to the rights of a person in a good acquired from a person that had no rights to transfer the good. But if we are just going to hand wave and dismiss such trends because they don't sit right with our intuitions, I suppose there is nothing more to be said. I question, however, whether strict adherence to caveat emptor in a worldwide market would be a net social good. What would your due diligence look like for buying lettuce at the supermarket? Is it that you suspect that triviality of the claim would preclude litigation against the buyer (and so is unworthy of legal consideration) or that you really want to examine the manifests for the lettuce shipment?

In any event, your challenge to Benkei about enforceable contracts with one sided consideration from the offerer, offer, and acceptance from the receiver hasn't been fully explored. Assuming for a moment that you don't think either quantum meruit or promissory estoppel qualify (consideration, even if trivial, is made by/expected from both parties to the claim), how about the enforceability of charitable pledges?

But if we are just going to hand wave and dismiss such trends because they don't sit right with our intuitions, I suppose there is nothing more to be said. — Ennui Elucidator

That is how I perceived the OP. Who knew it would lead where it went? (Rhetorical question.)

I question, however, whether strict adherence to caveat emptor in a worldwide market would be a net social good. — Ennui Elucidator

I think the social good comes from the state mandating that the public help it do it's job, or suffer the consequences. Pawn shops are notoriously on their toes, and that creates a black market where buyers should know better. There is also insurance. A buyer can cover his losses if he buy's stolen goods. The insurer levels premiums and proposes protocols to prevent claims. That way the legit grocery store, while still having the incentive to buy lettuce from reputable sellers, can pass the cost on to consumers.

One way around this (as I mentioned before) is to have the state provide basic services such that theft is not as prevalent as it would be where people feel the need to steel. And if you are a victim of theft, you can always have the state fill the gap. But I tossed that out back there in anticipation of the argument that the U.S. has a high crime rate. It does, but that has nothing to do with burdens of theft being placed on innocent BFPs.

Assuming for a moment that you don't think either quantum meruit or promissory estoppel qualify (consideration, even if trivial, is made by/expected from both parties to the claim), how about the enforcability of charitable pledges? — Ennui Elucidator

I thought that was covered by our discussion of gift (and detrimental reliance), which I intended to cover all the other nuance. If I offer to give you something for nothing, and you accept, then you will need to have detrimentally relied upon my promise in order to recover.

I thought that was covered by our discussion of gift (and detrimental reliance), which I intended to cover all the other nuance. If I offer to give you something for nothing, and you accept, then you will need to have detrimentally relied upon my promise in order to recover. — James Riley

No you wont, and that was the point of mentioning charitable pledges which are increasingly found to be enforceable in the absence of consideration.

Here is a random quote for you:

... The Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which many courts look to for guidance, goes a step beyond the relaxation of traditional contract requirements and provides that charitable pledges are binding without consideration or detrimental reliance.v This view has been adopted in at least two states on public policy grounds: "The real basis for enforcing a charitable subscription is one of public policy—that enforcement of a charitable subscription is a desirable social goal."vi ....
— Random Article

P.S. You forgot detrimental reliance in your hornbook recitation. — James Riley

I return to this quote for a moment because it suggests something that I didn't get to flesh out. When you go into a contracts class (and get a contracts book), it is generally organized as setting forth what a contract "is" (mutually bargained for consideration), the ways in which it is established (offer, acceptance, revocation, completion, etc.), the defenses to its enforcement (mistake, unconscionability, etc.), remedies to breach (specific performance, monetary damages, injunction, etc.), and then all of the exceptions and new causes of action sounding in contract that don't actually meet the strict definition of contracts or use legal presumptions/fictions to satisfy contract requirements. Unilateral contracts, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, charitable promises, etc. The point here is that if you just opened a hornbook, you'd see examples of enforceable contracts that did not involve mutually bargained for consideration. The "law" of contracts has to exist in a context of a broader sense of social justice (call it "equity" if you want) and its language can (and has) been used to create enforceable rights that would have been unheard of 200 years ago.

This view has been adopted in at least two states on public policy grounds: "The real basis for enforcing a charitable subscription is one of public policy — Random Article

Emphasis added.

Like I referred to above in reference to the state: it can do whatever it wants. A state can exercise eminent domain and can even unilaterally void contracts as a sovereign. It can also place the burden on innocent buyers instead of innocent victims. (The U.S. is lucky in that it has a "takings" clause and federal tort claim waivers of sovereign immunity and other protections, but I digress.)

The point here is, the Restatement is simply acknowledging that the state can do the exact opposite of what we were talking about. The plaintiff need not prove consideration (it wouldn't anyway, with a gift) or detrimental reliance (gift). That is imputed by the state on public policy grounds. Nor is there a burden on a defendant to discount detrimental reliance. It is presumed:

"Charities and nonprofit organizations rely heavily on contributions from their constituents for financial support. Donations take many forms—from ticket sales to subscriptions to fundraising auctions. Often, however, patrons make significant donations through pledges to be fulfilled after death by their trusts or estates. Depending on the magnitude of the pledge, an organization may include it as an asset in its publicly-available financial reporting and rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes. But is a charitable pledge legally enforceable if the donor's trustee or personal representative refuses to honor it?" https://www.millernash.com/firm-news/news/enforceability-of-a-charitable-pledge-agreement-against-a-donors-estate-or-trust

Note the distinction between the donor and the trustee or personal representative. That is another public policy reason since you don't have a party to the contribution to testify. Their actions are stipulated in the contribution. It's similar to a dying declaration or a statement against interest.

In short, you still have a gift, but it's been transmogrified by the state into a contract. Not the other way around.

you'd see examples of enforceable contracts that did not involve mutually bargained for consideration. — Ennui Elucidator

It's been over thirty years since school and over twenty since practice, but nothing in that paragraph in any way discounts what I argued. All of it relates to a failure of the meeting of the minds, and they all spring from enforcement actions and defenses. They are incidents where a contract is created or discounted, at law or in equity through efforts to enforce and defend. At no time is a court saying anyone anywhere is entitle to something for nothing. (Except gift, as already addressed.) There is always something and that something is consideration. If there is no consideration, then there was no contract and nobody is entitled to anything (except maybe fees and costs :wink: ). Can it be imputed? Yes, but something is there, or there is no contract, oral or written, at law or in equity. And that is the case the world around for thousands of years.

transmogrified by the state into a contract. — James Riley

Contracts are ONLY creations of the state as they are understood to be enforceable agreements between the parties. Did you have something else in mind?

An agreement between private parties creating mutual obligations enforceable by law. . . . — LII on contracts

Contracts are ONLY creations of the state . . . — Ennui Elucidator

No, they are not. States can create contracts, but so can private parties: "An agreement between private parties creating mutual obligations . . ." id. Enforcement does not entail creation. And enforcement only comes after interpretation. And interpretation only comes after disagreement.

an organization may include it as an asset in its publicly-available financial reporting and rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes. — James Riley

This gets tricky and most folks simply won't understand it. 501(c)(3)s as I recall are required to do accrual accounting; so, yep, Uncle's Ned's bequest, if entered at all (it could be ignored) is an asset, and assets are expressed as dollars. But they are emphatically not dollars: they're assets! And it can take even some accountants a few years to get that distinction straight. And often there will be a contra-asset for bequests pending, (or) not received, the idea being in at least some reports to negative out non-cash from cash, to net the so-called "quick" assets.

"And rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes." That's counting chickens, and bad joss wherever, however done. Detrimental reliance, at least in this context, both meaning and equaling bad management.

This gets tricky and most folks simply won't understand it. 501(c)(3)s as I recall are required to do accrual accounting; so, yep, Uncle's Ned's bequest, if entered at all (it could be ignored) is an asset, and assets are expressed as dollars. But they are emphatically not dollars: they're assets! And it can take even some accountants a few years to get that distinction straight. And often there will be a contra-asset for bequests pending, (or) not received, the idea being in at least some reports to negative out non-cash from cash, to net the so-called "quick" assets.

"And rely on it for planning and budgeting purposes." That's counting chickens, and bad joss wherever, however done. Detrimental reliance, at least in this context, both meaning and equaling bad management. — tim wood

That kind of shell game can occur with straight up corps, too (C and S, etc.). From the grantor's perspective, though, it is or can be a write off. It seems they are talking about pending grants, and not current. But you get my meaning. If it's irrevocable then it should be a write off. Another consideration easily imputed by a court.

I find this, fwiw - it's all interesting.

"Obligation Defined
"A contract is analyzable into two elements: the agreement, which comes from the parties, and the obligation, which comes from the law and makes the agreement binding on the parties. The concept of obligation is an importation from the civil law and its appearance in the Contract Clause [Constitution, 1, 10, 1] is supposed to have been due to James Wilson, a graduate of Scottish universities and a civilian. Actually, the term as used in the Contract Clause has been rendered more or less superfluous by the doctrine that [t]he laws which exist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it. Hence, the Court sometimes recognizes the term in its decisions applying the clause, and sometimes ignores it. In Sturges v. Crowninshield, Chief Justice Marshall defined obligation of contract as the law that binds a party to perform his undertaking, but a little later the same year, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, he set forth the points presented for consideration to be: 1. Is this contract protected by the constitution of the United States? 2. Is it impaired by the acts under which the defendant holds? The word obligation undoubtedly implies that the Constitution was intended to protect only executory contracts—i.e., contracts still awaiting performance—but this implication was rejected early on for a certain class of contracts, with immensely important result for the clause."

"Obligation Defined
"A contract is analyzable into two elements: the agreement, which comes from the parties, and the obligation, which comes from the law and makes the agreement binding on the parties. — tim wood

I'm sure you parsed this hair, but for anyone who didn't, the agreement includes offer, acceptance, consideration. The obligation referred to is that which is enforced, often after a finding and ruling in judicial review. This can include any of the equitable rulings related to the education provided by , as well as statutory application (law).

I can understand why the Constitution would apply to executory and executed (but disputed) contracts. Regardless, common law is normally sufficient for a ruling without resorting the Constitution. In fact, I've never heard of the Contract Clause as an issue between private parties. Could be, though.

I've never heard of the Contract Clause as an issue between private parties. Could be, though. — James Riley

Dartmouth v. Woodward? More generally, I am under the impression that in suits involving government, the government is always a named person.