1. 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
  2. 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  3. 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
坑爹,坑爹啊,坑爹哥,坑爹游戏,逗比,毁三观,坑,坑爹游戏2攻略,坑爹游戏3攻略,毒枭被坑爹儿子暴露

A promise that is so indefinite and uncertain that it cannot be enforced cannot be consideration. 允诺是不确定的,无常的 所以它是不能够被强制执行和给予对价的。 If a person promises not to do something that he or she has no right to do in the first place, it is not consideration. 如果一个人承诺不做某事,首先他或她就没有权利去做。这个不是对价。 Consideration is also not present where a person does something that he or she is already legally obligated to do. Where a promise is made to do something as a result of moral obligations, many courts take the position that there is no legal consideration. 当他或她是因为法律上的责任区做某事的时候,对价就不存在了。当时因为道德上义务承诺去做某事的时候,大多数法庭认为是没有法律上的对价的。 V. (禁止反言) Estoppel based on reliance Feinberg 芬伯格法伊弗芬伯格办公室经理 副财务主任 芬伯格芬伯格芬伯格[gratu·i·ty ||遣散费】 and notified Feinberg that her payments would be reduced to $100 per month. Feinberg refused to accept the reduced amount and Pfeiffer terminated【[ter·mi·nate |终止】all payments. 几年之后新任的法伊弗公司的主席认为这些钱只是遣散费,提醒芬伯格芬伯格 pen??n]退休金芬伯格法庭法庭芬伯格芬伯格芬伯格[indju:s] 诱导作用】or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, even if the promise was given without consideration. Past performance is not valid consideration to support a promise. 允诺的不容否定?mpl]充足的】 evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Feinberg would not have terminated her employment if she had not known and relied on Pfeiffer’s promise to pay her $200 per month for life, and that Feinberg relied on the continued receipt of the monthly pension. 上诉法庭认为有足够的证据去支持法庭的判决。芬伯格[detrim?nt] 损失】 to the promisee. 对价可能对允诺者是一个利益而对受允诺者是个损失 The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel supported Feinberg’s action. The action that was induced was Feinberg’s retirement from a lucrative 【[lu:kr?tiv] 赚钱的】position in reliance on Pfeiffer’s promise to pay her a pension. Feinberg justifiably relied on Pfeiffer’s promise by retiring earlier than she planned. 法庭认为允诺的不容

文档评论(0)

shbky123 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档