How do I submit a bid to an estate attorney? - Posted by Ben Buckley (Seattle)

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:


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.

  1. An offer.
  2. An acceptance.
  3. Competent parties.
  4. Legal purpose.
  5. Written documentation.
  6. Description of the property.
  7. 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

Please Scott? - Posted by Chris (TX)

Posted by Chris (TX) on July 19, 2002 at 09:30:26:

Three paragraphs isn’t all that much typing now is it? Of course, I hate legalese so maybe a “summary” that makes some kind of sense would be even better.

I’d love more information on this… please?


Re: I hate it when… - Posted by JoeKaiser

Posted by JoeKaiser on July 18, 2002 at 23:21:30:

And I hate it when you smarty pants guys figure out how to knock out $165k on one deal . . . YIKES!


Re: Please Scott? - Posted by ScottS

Posted by ScottS on July 19, 2002 at 12:24:46:


Since you asked I’ll go ahead.

This text is taken from “Business Law and The Legal Environment” Third Edition; Lieberman & Siedel; copyright 1992, 1988, 1985; pg 224-225.

"The existance of consideration is determined by examining wether the person against whom a promise is to be enforced (the promisor) received something in return from the person to whom he made the promise (the promisee). That may seem a simple enough question, But as with much in law, the complicating situations are never very far away. The “something” that is promised or delivered cannot be just anything: a feeling of pride, warmth, amusement, friendship; it must be something known as legal detriment-an act, a forebearance, or a promise of such from the promise. The detriment need not be an actual detriment; it may in fact be a benefit to the promisee, or at least not a loss. At the same time, the “detriment” to the promisee need not confer a tangible benefit on the promisor; the promisee can be to forego something without that something being given to the promisor. Wether consideration is legally sufficient has nothing to do with wether it is morally or economically adequate to make the bargain a fair one. Moreover, legal consideration need not even be certain; it can be a promise contingent on an event that may never happen. Consideration is a “legal” concept, and it centers on the giving up of a legal right or benefit.

Consideration has two elements. The first, as just outlined, is wether the promisee has incurred a legal detriment. (Some courts-although a minority-take the view that a bargained-for legal benefit to the promisor is sufficient consideration.) The second is wether the legal detriment was bargained for: did promisor specifically intend the act, forbearance, or promise in return for his promise?.."

After this the text just goes on to discuss three examples of contracts given at the start of the chapter.

I hope that helps.