Cast: Time to man up

[Cast]

Originally Posted by Grahm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^^ aimed at cast.

harrison fat.

the smiles aimed at cast, fat rays aimed at harrison confirmed by quoted text above

[Harrison]

Raise your hand if you bet you could 50 first and lost, then cried about the outcome and backpedaled like a little faggot.

Keep your hand up heavens_myst.

You're bad.

[fiegi]

Does Harrison even play on red or does he just post here/talk shit/complain 24/7 while he blues it up on p99

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by fiegi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does Harrison even play on red or does he just post here/talk shit/complain 24/7 while he blues it up on p99

I don't think he plays blue either [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Cast]

fat rays are attacking harrisons head, let him be guys. it's a form of cancer just instead of cancerous cells his cells are being over taken by fat

[Kole1]

looks like some law school kids did bad on their contracts class they prolly just finished. bad legal trolling going on. Here's my legal o-pinion.

Issue:Cast promise to delete char if someone hits 50 before him. He lost. Is the promise binding?

is there consideration? --

The consideration is present. Its not illusory. Someone accepted and as consideration furnishes a reciprocal promise to delete if they lose.

Rule:In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise and any damage, or suspension, or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain a promise(Hamer v Sidway)


Real Problem: none of us have privity of contract with Cast and therefore only Lovely could sue for breach, and specific performance ( deletion of the char).

[solid]

You're arguing a detriment to the promisee via forbearance to establish consideration, but in this case there was no detriment to Lovely. Pretty sure that nerd was going to no-life the box whether there as a deal or not, nothing to indicate he acted in reliance on Cast's promise either.

I feel like this case is VERY easy to crush my pretty obvious troll, but you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, props on the IRAC.

[solid]

Was going to wait for Lexxt to reply, but not looking like it was happening. Anyway, judging from the transcript he provided it doesn't even look like there was a meeting of the minds between the two, as Cast seems oblivious to Lovely actually accepting. Cast was not asking for a unilateral promise, but a bilateral one, and those elements were not met.

[Kole1]

well there was no detriment but there doesn't have to be actual detriment.

My thoughts are that the reciprocal promise(if one was made to delete if Lovely lost) should be adequate consideration.

I think you are confusing the adequacy(sp) of the consideration with promissory estoppel. For PE to apply there would have had to be a change in position in reliance on the promise to delete--and I agree I don't think Lovely changed his/her/it's position because of the promise. But that's confusing the issue. Its not whether the position changed, its simply was the consideration adequate to create a contract.

and thx on the IRAC respect. Been a while

[solid]

There ya go, that's what I would have went with- mutual promise, rather than forbearance. But again, no mutual assent (meeting of the minds), no mutual promise.

But about PE, I only brought up reliance there b/c it was brought up earlier. I realize it has nothing to do w/ consideration.