This is an illusory promise, since the buyer is required to buy from the merchant, while the merchant is not required to sell to that buyer. On the other hand, an illusory promise is an unenforceable promise, as one part may not be legally considered. An illusory promise is unenforceable. This is due to a lack of reciprocity or indeterminacy in which only one party is required to provide services. An illusory promise is based on illusions or parameters that are not defined, so one does not know what to do or whether performance is optional. The definition of consideration in this context means that it is an advantage, profit or interest for one party to a contract or a loss or disadvantage received or suffered by the other party. One thought may be this: a promise by a party to fulfill a commitment based on feelings is probably an illusory promise. If only one party is required to provide services and nothing valuable is promised in exchange, the treaty is illusory. In other words, the seller has the possibility to unilaterally modify the terms of the transaction and terminate the contract without informing the buyer. This is an illusory promise, as Dealer B is bound to fulfil an obligation in favour of Dealer A, while Dealer A makes no commitment to Dealer B. To illustrate the illusory promises, let`s look at some examples.
It is not uncommon for illusory contracts to be created as a result of misunderstandings and mistakes made by lay people who create contracts. However, it is possible that someone is intentionally creating a vague contract on their performance with the intention of deceiving the other party. However, if it turns out that there is no consideration for one party, while the other has a partisan advantage, the court may accept the illusory promise argument and cannot enforce the promise or contract. The language used in this type of agreement does not allow to know if the promising party should provide results due to the lack of clarity in the language used. Even if the party is compensated, the language does not show it clearly. Since the agreement does not clearly describe the service requested by one party and the other seems to require only payment or fulfil, the agreement is not applicable in court. If the provisions of the promise are left to the discretion or control of the person making the promise, nothing is absolutely promised and is therefore illusory. Another example would be that the board promised to buy as many goods as the board wanted to order from a local company. It is not a binding treaty. This is illusory. For there to be a mutual obligation in a treaty, the promises made by both sides must be mutually supportive and the promises must be real and useful. Illusory promises can be unfair.
Suppose, for example, a distributor says to a musician, “I will apply for your new music album when you create the album and I think it is possible for me to promote your music.” What happens if the musician keeps his side of the bargain, but the distributor refuses to promote the album? Could the distributor claim that his promise was illusory because he had the discretion to refuse to promote the album? This result could be unfair to the musician and a court could conclude that the distributor is required to make reasonable efforts in good faith to promote the album. . . .
Please direct requests and inquiries to Rhiannon Richards - Sr. PR & Communications Manager, 22837 Ventura Blvd, 3rd Floor, Woodland Hills, CA 91364 or call 818-225-5100 ext 249 or email@example.com