Celkem hlasů: 0
Damage can be general or logical. General damage is damage that naturally results from an offence. Consecutive damages are damages which, although not naturally the result of an offence, are of course accepted by both parties at the time of writing. An example would be that someone rents a car to go to a business meeting, but if that person comes to pick up the car, they are not there. The general damage would be the cost of renting another car. Consecutive damage would be lost if that person could not make it to the meeting, if both parties knew why the party rented the car. However, the obligation to reduce losses remains. The fact that the car was not there does not give the party the right not to try to rent another car. Factual allegations in a contract or when obtaining the contract are considered guarantees or insurance.
Traditionally, guarantees are factual commitments imposed by a contractual remedy, regardless of importance, intent or trust.  Representations are traditionally pre-contract statements that permit an unlawful act (for example. (B) the unlawful act) where the misrepresced presentation is negligence or fraud;  Historically, an unlawful act was the only act available, but in 1778, the breach of the guarantee became a separate contractual action.  In American law, the distinction between the two is somewhat blurred;  Guarantees are viewed primarily as contract-based lawsuits, while false statements of negligence or fraud are due to unlawful acts, but there is a confusing mix of jurisprudence in the United States.  In modern English law, sellers often avoid using the term „represents“ to avoid claims under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, whereas in America „Warrants and Represents“ is relatively common.  Some modern commentators suggest avoiding words and replacing „state“ or „consent,“ and some forms of models do not use words;  However, others disagree.  Let`s continue our example of a supplier offering to sell his scooter for four hundred dollars. He said, „I offer to sell my scooter for four hundred dollars.“ If you say, „I agree to buy your scooter for four hundred dollars, if I don`t find one that I like more,“ that is not a valid consideration.
That`s because you`ve made a condition for the counterparty. Basically, you have made what appears to be a promise to do something, but instead of being a promise, it is just an illusion of promise. This is called an illusory promise and it is not a valid consideration. There is no legal disadvantage for you here, as you may find a scooter that you like more than the one offered by the supplier.