I see no objection to Langdell's simplification into a detriment to the promisee. Any change of position to induce a promise is a detriment in theory of law, and it is not supposed to be desired qua detriment but qua change, e.g. delivery of possession or coming to dinner. It is trouble that the promisee by the terms of the contract puts himself to in order to get the promise, although in fact he may be very glad to do it.
＊請問 it is not supposed to be desired qua detriment but qua change
QUA是什麼意思?
沒有留言:
張貼留言