Reflection takes many forms. An appropriate form of consideration may be a promise or a benefit. There is reasonable thinking, even if the agreement is not “fair” or if the exchange is not at fair value. However, the general rule is that neither party is bound by execution by both parties. [1] That is, there must be reciprocity of the consideration or the contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration. A treaty is “illusory” and therefore not applicable if only one party is bound to it. For example, the promise to buy all the goods that the Somissor “wants” from a promise is illusory, because the Somissor is not obliged to buy something, unless it wants them. A conditional promise is a promise that the promiseor must fulfill, but only if a particular condition occurs. This is considered a binding promise, because if the condition arises, the promisor must keep its promise and thus limited its future options. Any contract that may consist of an arbitrary community is not invalidated because of reciprocity. For example, a contract with a minor is, at the discretion of the minor, not concluded for reasons of age. But it is still binding on the party on the other side if the miner decides to do so. Both types of contracts could be considered illusory, since the agreements bind only one party.

In the required order example, only Ben is bound. In theory, Doug can`t ask for a single mission. In the example of the emission contract, only Doug is bound. Again, Ben could not theoretically produce yoghurt. However, the court held that Wood, although not pronounced, had an implicit responsibility to use his good intentions to market Gordon`s clothing line. If he does not, he could be sued for breach of contract. [2] Since Wood owed this tacit duty in good faith, he was bound by the agreement. Gordon`s promise of 50% of net income was supported by a quid pro quo and enforceable.

[3] Under the common law, the contracts of requirement and exit were illusory and not reciprocal. In recent times, requirement and implementation contracts have been applicable because the parties are effectively limiting their options. If the buyer wishes to buy one of the products in the contract in a requirement contract, he must buy it from the seller, etc. A contract is not taken into account if there is at any time a right to withdraw or terminate the contract. However, there is a valid consideration if the right of withdrawal or retraction is limited in any way. The unilateral treaty is a promise in exchange for performance. The most common example of unilateral promise is a reward offer. The promise to give a $100 reward to those who find a lost pet does not expect a promise in return. Instead, anyone who gets the benefit is entitled to the reward. There is no reciprocity of consideration, because there is only one promise and one party that is binding.

Nevertheless, unilateral treaties are exceptions to the reciprocity and enforceable rule. This is another scenario of an apparent exception to the reciprocity rule. Since the obligation to use the best efforts is implicit and enforceable, both parties are bound by agreement and mutual respect exists. While this presentation highlighted some scenarios in which reciprocity of the counterparty is not necessary, reciprocity of the recital is generally necessary for an agreement to be implemented. Reciprocity is not always obvious and may be implied by the circumstances or the applicable rules, but as a key mechanism to ensure that the essential elements of the contract of reflection are in place to make the treaty enforceable.