Won in small claims court. How can a judge say there is no vebal contract when all three parts exsist.. offer,
A neighbor of my freind walked my dog, on a leash around her yard then put my dog in the fenced in area with her dog. Her dog attacked mine biting off part of her ear. Surgery and six hundred dollars later; I took her to small claims court for failure to pay the total amount she promised to pay. She made a verbal contract that night to pay the vet bill. She paid amost half then stopped. No response to my communication etc. Verbal contacts have three parts. An offer, acceptanceand consideration. The judge said it was a gratuitous gesture not a contract. She offered to pay the bill, I accepted,she made payments (consideration). How is that not a verbal contract? I won. The award was one half the bill! Thirty more dollars. Any rational for this verdict? Not to mention the news with all the recent dog attack injuries and deaths; where is the accountabilty? Thank you.
Answers:
"Past consideration is no consideration".
Her promise to pay came after the event, and not in "bargained for exchange" of any promise from you. Since you put no consideration into the contract, there was not mutual consideration from both parties.
The judge was correct.
it is close to a verbal contract but not sure.it seems from what i have to look at here that you did not get a lein against this person.it appears that no innocense was determined and the judge just said for you and her to work it out.if the judge had ordered ger to pay them you would have enough to win your case..the way you have it written the judge never ordered her to pay.if this is all not the case then rewrite it so we can get more info
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: