Kim Vs Son

There are three rules of consideration: Both parties must get a measurable value from the contract, a promise to give something of value counts as consideration, and both parties must have bargained for whatever was exchanged and struck a deal. In the case of Kim v. Son, there is no consideration. There was no bargain exchanged between the two parties. Son felt guilty over Kim’s losses and thus offered a gratuitous gesture to repay Kim. This gesture is not enforceable in court. Since Son and Kim did not bargain for it, there is no contract, and Son does not owe Kim any money. It was only after Son wrote on a napkin in his own blood to repay Kim back “to the best of his ability” that Kim agreed to forbear his right to sue him for the money owed.
UCC governs contractual transaction with goods and tangible objects (such as a purchase of a car). The Common Law and UCC have their distinct differences and it is vital to know and understand them if you are in a position where you contractually transact often.
Commercial Code refers to this as a firm offer and requires it in writing. The Uniform Commercial Code also requires that the offer be made by a merchant as opposed to a just having consideration to support the offer. The time to sue on a contract varies by state to state and is usually different for oral versus written contracts. In conclusion of the case of Kim vs. Son, the appropriate source of law applicable is the common law contract. If Kim had incurred the loss during the trading or selling of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code would be the more suitable source of law. Since the contract lacked consideration and Son was not involved in a legally binding contract that clearly placed him at fault for the loss of Kim’s investments, Kim did not have a solid case and wasted his time filing a law suit against