|
|
|
|
Q2.Was
refraining from the things designated by the uncle really detrimental to the
nephew, who was between the ages of about 15 and 21 during the period of
abstention? Wasn't giving these things up actually beneficial to a young man
by helping create good habits during his formative years? (Choose
the best answer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hello! Duh! Does anyone see that
the promise was in writing? It is a contract. |
|
|
 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professor, it is
like I said the first time. The point is that the uncle got what he asked for
and thus, to quote the court, "benefitted in a legal sense." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, no beer, no
weed, no cards, no pool. Benefited? What kind of wimp is this dude going to
turn out to be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is true,
professor sir. But it misses the point that the young man, in the court's
words, "had a legal right to" do those things from which he
refrained at his uncle's request. Giving up that right was detrimental to him
in the legal sense and, thus, constituted consideration. |
|
|
|
|
Question 2
