Contracts backed by a small counterparty are enforceable because courts seek consideration for a promise rather than looking at the commercial benefits of the contract. Generally speaking, the courts do not ask whether the agreement between two parties was monetarily fair, except that each party passed on a legal obligation or obligation to the other party.   The dispositive issue is the existence of considerations and not the adequacy of the consideration. The values between the counterparties issued against each other by each party to a contract must not be comparable. Since there is no quid pro quo from a party, there is no contract. If A signs a contract with B, so that A will delete B`s house for 500 $US, A`s counterparty is the service of removing B`s house and B`s consideration is US$500 paid to A. If A signs a contract with B, so A won`t repaint his own house in a color other than white, and B A pays $500 a year to stop that deal, there`s also a quid pro quo. Although A did not promise to answer in the affirmative anything, A promised not to do something that was allowed to him, and so A did the reflection. A`s consideration of B is the indulgence to paint one`s own home in a color other than white, and The idea from B to A is $500 per year. Conversely, if A signed a contract to buy a car from B for $0, B`s counterpart is still the car, but A has no consideration, and therefore there is no valid contract. However, if B still passes the title to the car to A, B cannot take back the car, as it is not a valid contract, but it is a valid gift.
The already existing obligations in the field of employment by agreement depend to a large part on the law of the State. Generally speaking, employment after authorization allows the employer to levitate the employee forever, or even for no reason (as long as the reason is not explicitly illegal, if it does not exist) and allows the worker to resign for any reason whatsoever. There is no obligation to maintain employment in the future. Therefore, when an employee requests a salary increase, there is no problem of compensation, because the worker is not legally required to continue working. If an employer demands a reduction in wages, there is also no contractual problem with the counterparty, because the employer has no legal obligation to continue to employ the employee. However, some States require more in-depth reflection than the prospect of maintaining employment, in order to subsequently impose the conditions required by the employer, in particular the prohibitions of competition. In general, conditional consideration is a valid consideration. Contract law states that „the counterparty must move away from the promise.“ The consideration can be anything of value (e.g. .B. Goods, money, services or promises of one of the latter) that each party gives in return to support its side of the bargain. . .