OCR Text |
Show THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. Tho law of contracts lies at tho foundation foun-dation of nearly every branch of the law. It is, therefore, tho first and most Important subject not only for tho law student, who is studying law for the purpose of practicing, but for tho layman, lay-man, who wants to understand in a general way his legal rights and obligations. obli-gations. Wo aro making contracts day by day, usually unconscious of tho fact. When I hall a street car and it stops for mo and I stop aboard, I enter into in-to a contract with tho corporation that owns and operates tho car for a breach of which I am llablo in damages, as is tho corporation. Every tlmo I buy something In a store, no matter whether wheth-er It bo a steam engine or a pin, I am making a contract. In hiring servants and agents, in renting and subletting property, In buying provisions for my table, In buying tickets for an entertainment enter-tainment In fact, in almost every act that Is puroly social in its nature, I am entering into a contract. Indeed, bust-siness bust-siness is but another name for the making nnd executing of contracts. Tho importanco, therefore, of one's knowing at least tho general principles princi-ples of contracts Is evident. Somo persons uso tho words "agreements" "agree-ments" and "contract" as synonymous, that is, as meaning tho same thing. A contract is always an agreement, either expressed or understood, but an agreement agree-ment Is not always n contract. I may mako an agreement with you to spend tho evening at your homo, but that agreement is not a contract. I am bound by tho rules of etiquette and good morals to fulfill the agreement, but I not bound by tho law to fulfill it, and in case I do not fulfill it, I am not bound by tho law to suffer damages by reason of my failure; nor could you go Into a court and compel mo to fulfill ful-fill it. Therefore, one distinction between a contract and an agreoment Is that tho former Is an agreement enforciblo at law, that Is, an agreement that the law will either compel mo to perform, or will compel mo to pay damages for falling to perform, while the latter is not so enforciblo. Another distinction between an agreement and a contract is this: The law says that In a contract a man contemplates con-templates legal relations, that Is, ho intends to put himself under legal obligations, ob-ligations, and in nn agreement ho does not so intend, his purpose being merely mere-ly to bind himself by a social obligation. obliga-tion. Wo have nothing to do in these talks with merely social obligations; wo treat only of such engagements or agreements as the law holds binding. Wo distinguish, too, between kinds of contracts; for instance, a contract may bo express or it may bo implied. An express contract is one where tho terms aro expressed or stated, either orally or In writing. An Implied contract con-tract is one xhcro tho facts in connection con-nection with tho matter are such that tho law will infer certain things. If I go into a store where I havo credit, tako up an article, and say to the clerk. "I will take this. Charge it to me," tho contract Is not an express contract; there Is no price set, no time of payment indicated, no promise of payment. Tho law, however, Infers that I havo mado a promlso to pay a reasonable price for tho article in a reasonable or tho customary time. Wo often hear It said that a contract is not good without a "consideration," or that a contract must have a "consideration "consid-eration to support it. The moaning of this is simply that a promise cannot bo enforced in law unless something is paid or promised to be paid for the promlso, or unless the person to whom tho promlso Is made has done something some-thing or suffered some loss by depending depend-ing on tho promise. If I promise to mako you a present and fail to do so, you cannot hold me in law accountable for breaking my promise, no matter how much inconvenience or unhappi-ness unhappi-ness it may cause you. If, however, I promlso to do something for you or give you something In consideration of your paying me something, or suffering somo small loss, I can be held to the promise. It is in this sense that tho law requires that in order for a promlso pro-mlso to bo binding, it must have a consideration another word for the price. It used to bo said whenever a promise prom-ise was under seal, that is, whero it was In writing and the promisor attached at-tached to his name his seal, the law would forbid tho promisor from denying deny-ing that there was a consideration. In other, words, the fact that a seal appeared ap-peared on tho promlso was evidence concluslvo that there was a consideration considera-tion and in a suit at law to compel tho performance of the promlso the promisor prom-isor could not bring in evidence to tho effect that ho had received nothing for tho promlso, nnd theroforo was not bound by it. Our present law, how-over, how-over, has almost wholly done away with this fiction. Now tho consideration considera-tion of a promise may bo inquired Into, In-to, whether it be under seal or not. It must not bo thought that in order to support a promise the other party must necessarily give something or promlso to glvo something. If ho Is to loso or suffer something or promises prom-ises to glvo up something, the consideration consid-eration is a valid one. If I promise to glvo you a hundred dollars if you stop smoking for six months, and depending de-pending upon my promise, you do stop smoking for six months, I am bound to pay tho ono hundred dollars. In this caso you havo not given anything or promised to give anything to mo, but you havo suffered a loss, or have given up something, depending upon tho promlso. It has always been held that a promlso Is a good consideration for a promlso, that Is, my promlso to do something for you, If given In ox-chati ox-chati for a promise by you to do som thing for mo, makes a valid contract. con-tract. Tho most common oxamplo of this sort of a contract Is the marriage contract, under which each party promises, and tho promlso of each Is a consideration for the promlso of tho other. Sometimes It Is not an easy matter . to determine whether tho contract has " a consideration or not. It should bo understood that whero ono is already bound In tho law to do a certain thing, his promlso to do that thing Is not a sufficient consideration to support a 6) contract. Suppose, that for Instance, that you owe mo a hundred dollars and the debt Is overdue. I say to you, "If you will pay mo tho hundred dollars you owe mo, I will glvo you tho rent of a house free for a month." Dopendlng on my promise, you pay mo tho hundred dollars, dol-lars, and I refuso to glvo you tho house. Am I justified In law In refusing? refus-ing? What Is tho consideration for my promlso to glvo you tho house free k for a month? It is tho doing by you j of something that you aro already U bound to do; therefore tho law says there is no legal consideration, and it will not compel mo to let you havo the Q & house. Suppose that you havo minor children child-ren and you do not support them, as in law you aro bound to do, giving them food, shelter, medicine, and edu- a. cation such as Is reasonable consld-ering consld-ering your abilities, etc. I say to you, "If you will treat your children for a year as you aro bound in tho law to treat them, I will glvo you five hundred dollars." You accept tho arrangement and provide your children with clothing, cloth-ing, medicines, education, etc., as in law you are bound to do, and then ask mo for the five hundred dollars, and I refuse to give it to you. You bring suit against me. My lawyer in court pleads that you wero in law already bound to do tho things which you promised to do. Tho court agrees with him. and the case is dismissed. You start to build a house for me, under a contract to complete it for a certain amount. Before you llnlsh it, you find you nro going to lose money. You say, "I will not finish it unless you pay me $500 more." I mako a promise prom-ise to do so, and you finish tho house. Tho question arises as to whether I am bound to pay the extra price that I havo promised. In good morals I may bo bound to; In law, I am not. (To bo continuedi) |