Re: Then it’s convention/tradition and not law? - Posted by Jim Kennedy - Houston, TX
Posted by Jim Kennedy - Houston, TX on July 21, 2002 at 13:03:16:
David,
Just to be clear, I’m sure what you meant to say was, “From posts I’ve read, sounds like there’s case law making CASH consideration a part to ‘binding’ the contract.”
The reason I point this out is that it’s my understanding that all real estate contracts must contain consideration in order to be enforceable. The discussion at hand is whether or not that consideration must be in some form of “money” consideration.
BTW, in addition to consideration, here are the other elements that must be present in order for a real estate contract to be considered valid/binding/enforceable.
- An offer.
- An acceptance.
- Competent parties.
- Legal purpose.
- Written documentation.
- Description of the property.
- Signature of the parties.
I’m not a lawyer and, quite honestly, I don’t KNOW whether or not the consideration must be “money”, but based on what I’ve read over the years, I BELIEVE that Joe Kaiser is correct. While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Ed-TX (Texans never tell tall tales -LOL), I suspect that the judge was probably wrong (no - judges CAN’T possibly rule incorrectly -LOL) and would probably be overturned upon appeal.
Best of Success!!
Jim Kennedy,
Houston, TX