promisee

Basically, the consideration is provided by the promisee's beginning of performance.

This is because the consideration for the contract was the performance of the promisee.

So we must look to 'the loss truly suffered by the promisee'.

An option contract can provide some security to the promisee in the above scenario.

Promises can be valuable to the promisee or even to the promiser.

In the first place, it assumes that the only test of consideration is a detriment to the promisee.

Therefore, the only reliance that the promisee must demonstrate is the actual making of the part payment.

The promisee must have an intention to benefit the third party - but this requirement has an unusual meaning under the law.

However, if the promisee provides more than what public duty imposes on him, then this is good consideration.

This may seem unfair, but it is up to the promisee whether or not he enforces the promise.

While, therefore, the performance may not be a detriment to the promisee, it is certainly a benefit to the promisor.

A different stance is taken in Scots law, where a promisee has a duty to the third party to ensure performance of the contract.

Section 4 preserves the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract.

This fails to take into account situations where the promisee has suffered personal loss from the breach of contract.

The promisee can also sue the promisor for failing to pay the third party beneficiary.

As time passes and the original promisee of the covenant is no longer involved in the land, enforcement may become lax.

There must be the five elements of promiser, promisee, offer, substance, and consideration."

At the same time the courts may add conditions to that decision, such as requiring the promisor or promisee to pay the third party compensation.

In unilateral contracts, the promisor seeks acceptance by performance from the promisee.

For example, a task requiring specialized skills or based on the unique characteristics of the promisee can not be delegated.

The courts ruled that a promisee cannot bring an action unless the consideration from the promise moved from him.

The primary purpose of a promise is to undertake an obligation; the special rights which arise for the promisee are in a sense secondary.

It is consideration provided by somebody else, not a party to the contract, which does not 'move from the promisee.'

Here the benefits to the defendants arose out of their agreement of April 9, 1986 with the plaintiff, the promisee.

A promise is gratuitous unless the promisee is paying a price for it by giving something in retum.