However, some courts in the United States may challenge an unbilled, worthless consideration or consideration. Since then, some courts have thought it looked like it. Since contractual disputes are generally settled in state courts, some state courts have found that the mere provision of one dollar to another is not a sufficient legal obligation and therefore no legal consideration is contemplated for such transactions and, therefore, no contract is concluded. However, this is a minority position.  Using a « reasonable negotiator, » the Delaware court found that Innoviva and Sarissa had reached an agreement on all the terms of the transaction that they considered important and that they had reached during the 2:30 p.m. telephone call .m. The Tribunal also found that at this stage the parties did not intend to sign their agreement to sign a written document. As a result, the Tribunal expressly imposed the terms of the 2:30 p.m. agreement .m and required Innoviva to add two members to its board of directors and to present two of the candidates to Sarissa on the basis of the original settlement agreement.
1) According to the theory of well-being, there is only a reasonable consideration if a promise is made in the benefit of the promise or at the expense of the promise that prompts the promise of something else for the beneficiary of the promise. For example, promises that are not pure gifts are not considered enforceable, as the personal satisfaction that the donor can obtain from the promise by the act of generosity is generally not considered a sufficient inconvenience to obtain adequate consideration. 2) Under the idea of a good deal for exchange, there is appropriate thinking when a promisor makes a promise in exchange for something else. Here is the essential condition that the promisor was given something specifically to induce the promise made. In other words, the theory of good deal for exchange differs from the theory of damage-benefit by the fact that the centre of gravity of the theory of the exchange of parties seems to be the reason for making the promises and subjective mutual consent of the parties, while the emphasis on damage-benefit theory seems to be an objective legal disadvantage or an advantage for the parties.