I know you are criticizing the rulings that have trended this way, but my point is still out there. A valid contract must have both 1) an understanding between the parties on what is being agreed upon and 2) some consideration (“I give this, you give that”). Without both things, you don’t have a contract.
So I guess I’m asking how the hell a court can decide that there was a contract if the defendant can show there was never a valid understanding on the terms of the agreement.
