Also known as: valuable considerations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Something of value such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee. It is necessary for an agreement to be enforceable as a contract.
Something of value such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee. It is necessary for an agreement to be enforceable as a contract.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Something of value such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee. It is required for a purchaser to qualify as a bona fide purchaser under recording statutes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Something of value such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee. It is required for a purchaser to qualify as a bona fide purchaser under recording statutes.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Maria accused her former law firm of mishandling her case and threatened suit. The managing partner replied by offering a full refund plus payment for new counsel if Maria agreed not to sue. Maria later sought to introduce the email at trial to prove malpractice. The court excluded the email because it constituted an offer of valuable consideration to compromise a disputed claim.
A taxpayer declared he would place future income in trust for his children but provided no present transfer. The court held the declaration unenforceable because it lacked valuable consideration and amounted only to a gratuitous promise.
Georgia legislators conveyed land through a corrupt statute and later repealed the grant. Subsequent buyers who paid valuable consideration and lacked notice of the original fraud retained their titles because the repealing act could not divest their vested rights.
Shelley purchased property for valuable consideration without actual knowledge of a racially restrictive covenant recorded against the parcel. The Court held that judicial enforcement of the covenant would violate equal protection even though Shelley had paid valuable consideration.
A brewery owner had invested valuable consideration in constructing a facility before Kansas enacted a prohibition statute. The Court upheld the statute as a valid exercise of police power that did not constitute a taking despite the owner's prior expenditure.
Valuable consideration must have substantial pecuniary value and show the claimant is a purchaser rather than a donee. Love and affection suffice for an executed conveyance but do not qualify a grantee as a bona fide purchaser under recording acts.
Supporting sources
No. The protection applies once a dispute exists, regardless of whether a complaint has been filed. An offer made after a threat to sue is still an offer to compromise a disputed claim and remains inadmissible to prove liability or amount.
Supporting sources
No. The transferee receives only the right to distributions actually made. The partnership's good-faith decision to retain funds for renovations controls, and the transferee cannot override that managerial choice.
Supporting sources
No. If the information is sufficient to put a reasonable buyer on inquiry notice, the purchaser is charged with whatever further investigation would have revealed and loses bona-fide-purchaser status.
Supporting sources
Owner conveyed Blackacre to A who failed to record. Owner then conveyed the same parcel to B for cash and B recorded first without actual notice of A's deed. B prevails over A because B gave valuable consideration and satisfied the remaining elements of the recording statute.
…before this suit was instituted. On August 11, 1945, pursuant to a contract of sale, petitioners Shelley, who are Negroes, for valuable consideration received from one Fitzgerald a warranty deed to the parcel in question.[^maj-1] The trial court found that petitioners had no actual knowledge of the restrictive agreement at the time of…