Talk:Consideration

message: I notice that in the "Existing legal duties" section that an example mentions that cigarette smoking is a criminal offense in the U.S. Is this true? I thought the sale was illegal -- I could be wrong. Is this a federal law in the example, or a state law? Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing legal duties -- criminal offense? 

message: User:Jachin foolishly moved the article to Consideration under American law on 15 April 2007.  I always thought that was a dumb idea and time has proved me right. Now we have THREE articles on consideration, all of which are mediocre. Anyone have the time, energy, or interest to fix this mess?  Thought not.  Does Jachin have the integrity to fix this mess he/she caused?  Thought not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's been over a YEAR and Jachin has not fixed the colossal mess he/she created.  This is REALLY sad that one of the most important concepts in the common law of contracts is so poorly treated on Wikipedia.  Too bad I don't have the time myself to research and draft a new treatment from scratch.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess, splitting the article was a BAD idea 

message: Could someone write a new opening paragraph with a simple intuitive explanation of the concept and a simple example? I'm a well-educated guy (but not a lawyer), and after reading this carefully I still don't understand what "consideration" is in a legal context. 76.173.97.27 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Consideration under American law, which was originally at this location before it was unwisely moved (see discussion above) contains exactly what you're looking for, including simple hypothetical examples.   --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like it was written for lawyers 

message: Is a donation to an unrelated third party considered 'consideration'?  Can this be clarified?
42 USC § 274E - PROHIBITION OF ORGAN PURCHASES says:
:...It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce...
Is organ donation conditional on donation by the recipient to a major nonprofit (e.g. a charity, 501(c)3, the United Way) therefore prohibited?  Any case law on this?  I would think that since the money isn't going to the organ donor, it would not be considered permissible (unless the non-profit was associated with the organ donor).   (OTOH, cy pres is considered a form of compensation in the context of a class action and that's what makes it appropriate in that context.)--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation 

message: I found this article so clear and helpful that I thought it worth commenting here. I see in the past some people have been very critical so maybe the article has been improved. I am very curious what "do not engage females" might mean but my ignorance hasn't reduced my understanding of the general topic. Fortunately my uncle made no such stipulation in my case (but he didn't give me $500 either!). Thincat (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice article 

message: There are currently at least three pages on this topic, with some inevitable overlaps. They are this page Consideration, plus Consideration under English law and Consideration under American law. I suggest that this page becomes a much shorter summary page, with directions to the other two, which then survive with improvements. The "Consideration under English law" page needs a lot of work! (I'll post a version of this message on the other pages). Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalisation of consideration pages 

message: The example given for bundled terms is mostly the fact pattern for Hamer v. Sidway, as the citation indicates. The problem with the example is that in the original case, the nephew's forbearance from smoking and drinking wasn't legally valueless, since at the time both were legal for him in New York. 124 N.Y. 538 at 546 ("the promisee used tobacco, occasionally drank liquor, and he had a legal right to do so."). I don't know enough about contracts to know whether the initial statement--that a legally valueless term can constitute consideration--is valid, so I can't offer to rewrite the section.  However, it does need to be rewritten with, at least, a citation to the premise statement and/or to an example with an on point fact pattern. Ndovu (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bundled terms and Hamer v. Sidway