JD Next Practice Exam

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment

Prepare for the JD Next Exam with our comprehensive quiz. Engage with multiple choice questions, each featuring detailed explanations and hints to facilitate understanding. Achieve success with our tailored study tools!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.

What does the court imply when it states that a requirement to determine if a promise benefits a party would be intolerable?

Such a rule would be beneficial for the legal system
Such a rule is unnecessary and will not be enforced
Such a rule promotes fairness in contract law
Such a rule increases legal disputes

The correct answer is: Such a rule is unnecessary and will not be enforced

When the court describes a requirement to determine if a promise benefits a party as intolerable, it suggests that enforcing such a rule is not practical or necessary within the context of contract law. The reasoning is that requiring parties to constantly assess and prove the benefits of their promises would add an unnecessary layer of complexity and burden to legal proceedings. This indicates that the legal system seeks to preserve efficiency and clarity in contract enforcement rather than complicate matters with potentially ambiguous assessments of benefit. Imposing such a requirement could lead to significant obstacles in contract interpretation, creating confusion and inconsistency in legal outcomes. Thus, the implication is that the court views this kind of rule as something that complicates and detracts from the fundamental principles of contract law, indicating it is neither needed nor likely to be practical in implementation.