The answer to the first question is simple; Krause cannot avoid the contract arguing that the consideration is inadequate. For, there is a provision in the Contract Act ‘consideration need not be adequate’. To be clearer, Section 79 of the Second Restatement (as cited in Klass, 2010, pp. 74-75) puts it; there is no requirement of equivalences in the values exchanged. As no court is interested in inquiring the adequacy of consideration, it is deemed that it will be sufficient to support the exchange. The general rule of law is that if the payment is too little for the consideration from the part of the other, the former does not satisfy the requirements of a consideration. If in the given case, the agreed amount is too meager, Krause can bring it to the notice of the court. As there is no information disclosed regarding the market price and the agreed price, let us conclude that there is no option to avoid the contract and both parties have to play their respective role in the contract.In the second instance, what has happened is a unilateral mistake. In the case of unilateral mistakes, it is unlikely that it happens while drafting a contractual agreement. However, the severity of the mistake depends on the person who has done it. . Potential Contractual Defects.
Klass, G. (2010). Contract Law in the USA. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Rosen, R. A. (2000). Settlement Agreements in Commercial Disputes: Negotiating, Drafting & Enforcement. USA: Aspen Publishers Online.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples