stupid but fundamental question: what EXACTLY is a contract?

[jellybean00]

aside from exceptions like promissory estoppel and material benefit rule... what exactly are the NECESSARY components of a traditional contract?

just consideration?

meeting of the minds + consideration?

consideration + offer and acceptance?

i feel like every time i read another case or chapter, the requirements of a contract are defined in a slightly different way.

i'm so confused.

[resipsaloquitur]

Here is your framework:  O + A + C = K  (Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = Contract)

Deal with each element on its own terms, but don't lose sight of that big picture.

[dischord]

That's covered by offer and acceptance, I believe. 

Although don't listen to me, I'm pretty sure I'm going to fail.

[resipsaloquitur]

PJH, you have the right idea.  Mutuality of assent can indeed be dealt with under the element of Offer (e.g. whether an offer ever existed or whether an offer has been revoked) and the element of Acceptance.

Don't mess with the simplicity of the formula.  Don't add more trees to the forest.

[dischord]

 

Not failing.

[dischord]

PJH, you have the right idea.  Mutuality of assent can indeed be dealt with under the element of Offer (e.g. whether an offer ever existed or whether an offer has been revoked) and the element of Acceptance.

Don't mess with the simplicity of the formula.  Don't add more trees to the forest.

Well, my prof. treats them as separate, so I treat them as separate.

Fair enough, my prof basically defined offer and acceptance as expressions of assent.

[Jake_MONDATTA]

I echo the last post with regard to meeting of the minds.  Our prof has told us repeatedly that this notion is outdated.  In fact, he told us the notion is outdated several times before he told us what it actually means.

[Jake_MONDATTA]

they do?

[resipsaloquitur]