Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Gift or Bargain?

September 02, 2020

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Gift or Bargain? | Promises to Make a Gift

September 02, 2020

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)

Unit 1 | Four Principles | Gift or Bargain? | Promises to Make a Gift

Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law:

My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Gift or Bargain? – Promises to Make a Gift hyperlink: My Promises to Make a Gift Rewritten Lecture Notes PDF Hyperlink

Professor Fried has told us in our pervious lesson that there are countries in which, a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments to make a gift in form of a coordinated element activities of an offer contract from one (1) party to another party perhaps are as follows:

1. if, the promise to make a gift was documented or ascribed in writing;

2. if, we cannot really be sure that the promise to make a gift was ever made to another party; and

3. if, we can ensure that there is nothing immortal behind the promise to make an one party-side gift offer.

In which, validates those countries societal scientific and law application analyzes in tests, textbooks and, statutes practices are somewhat frowns upon and, those countries societal laws will enforce any parties real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments to make a gift in a coordinated element offer from one (1) party to another party.

Except in the United States of America for which, our societal scientific and law application analyzes in tests, textbooks and, statutes practices are only heard in two (2) different judiciary court systems are as follows:

1. criminal; and

2. civil courts.

Whereas, other countries judiciary court systems are called common or general litigated practices in those countries in which, those countries laws and statutes derived from England, as well.

Now, our United States’ judiciary court systems in which, a coordinated element offer cases in promises to make a gift is generally unenforceable because a coordinated element offer cases lacks the bargaining element of considerations. So, there are four (4) types of principals in which, a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments are not all coordinated element offer contracts are as follows:

1. the Invitation to Dinner case had shown an informal or no intent to create a legal relation;
2. the Silver Watch Case was a promise offer contract which was a joke and not a real offer contract even though, the silver watch case was a coordinated element offer in form of a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments;
a) Leonard verses PepsiCo Inc case, same as, the above explanation in number two (2).
3. The Married man and his mistress case were a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments in form of a coordinated element offer contract was considered by the Judiciary court system as, an illegal and immoral offer contract which created their informal legal relations intent; and
4. Mr. Big, who is a married man give a Gift and [not] a Bargain to his mistress because a coordinated bargain exchanged made from one (1) party and, not by the other party from a neutral agreements, as an offer exchange for nothing is considered not a bargain and, a bargain in this case does create an informal legal relations intent which are not considered an official offer contract between parties.

[1]

What is so, unique about an official coordinated bargain exchanges in which, the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] only want to stand behind those govern law applications practices from a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments? Well, a bargain is an official offer contract that established what each party will give, receive, or perform in a transactional coordinated element interchanges from their social dealing between them is known as, a commerce. And, a cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments which are jokes from an informal friendly interchange relations intent between friends and, an official offer to give a gift in those types of cases decided by the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] viewpoints had applied their scientific and law application analyzes in tests, textbooks and, statutes practices which are not important enough. After, the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] analytical determinations were decided not to either stand behind or get involved in those types of cases because those types of cases does not created a legal relations intent. Those types of informal legal relations intent cases are not important enough for the[se] Honorable Judge[s], Attorney[s] and Jury [ies] to legally spend taxpayers’ dollars and time on, in order to enforce an informal legal relations intent cases. Therefore, all of the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] are going to enforced are bargains.

Now, a transactional coordinated element interchanges turnout through a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments are determined often by means of the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] who [m] is [are] applying scientific law applications analyzed by way of tests, textbooks and statutes practices will only enforce bargain exchanges for an official offer contracts. In fact, we will analyze different scientific law application practices in types of bargain exchanges in our next few online lectures and modules which are very important cases’ litigations where, we cannot find any bargain exchanges between parties. And, yet the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] will stand behind those different law applications practices in order to determine if those parties had created a formal legal relations intent types of bargain exchanges. Furthermore, the[se] judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] will enforced those bargain exchanges in an embarrassing ways, as if, those bargain exchanges are some kind of an extraordinary exceptions towards our societal scientific law applications practices in tests, textbooks and statutes norms in which, some formal legal relations intents from a bargain exchanges are extraordinary exceptions to those scientific law applications’ rules. And, those bargain exchanges are very important extraordinary exceptions and, we will exam them much more carefully going forward in our online lecture tutorials.

In this moment in time, we have been challenged with four (4) different principal types in which, no judiciary court system[s] and Honorable Judge[s] direct enforcement towards a bargain exchanges’ litigations were based purely on an informal legal relations intent cases not intended to create a formal legal relations intents from an official offer contracts that seems like or appear to be a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments from a bargain exchanges. When those parties really had meant their real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments in bargain exchanges for an official offer contracts, as a joke, or the first (1^st) party had meant his or her real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments in a bargain exchanges for an official offer contracts were a joke and, the second (2nd) party should certainly had known the first (1^st) party was joking about his or her official contract offers. And, there are bargain where those coordinated element interchanges had occurred which are somehow an immoral offer contracts. And, finally, a bargain which are not bargain at all but are in fact, a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments to make a gift.

Now, Professor Fried will get us in the mood towards what really happens in a judiciary court system[s] and, we have analyzed four (4) different principal types in which, the United States’ judiciary court system[s] will stand behind any real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments in bargain exchanges.

[1]

Secondly, how does the United States’ judiciary court system[s] legally determined if, any real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments from an offer contracts are bargain exchanges whether if, those bargain exchanges are good or fair bargains, or rather those bargain exchanges are bargains at all?

[1]

Appropriately, a bargain exchanges which led to a parties contract offers through a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments exists because of our United States’ judiciary court system[s] had applied scientific law application analyzes in every criminal and civil case by means of prima facie legal claim tests, textbooks and statutes practices using those effective law determinations from a scientific application measurement gauges which allows each party to exercise free will interchanges. In order to bargain exchange with one (1) another in good faith without judiciary court system[s] interferences and interventions or looking over each party shoulders in their bargain exchanges contract offers activities. Therefore, our United States’ judiciary court system[s] leaves each party in our society in what to decide for themselves and, how to bargain exchange with one (1) another, as to each party unlimited exercises from their free will in commerce.