<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Laws of Ochlocracy &#187; Mills v Wyman</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ochlocracy.org/law/definition/mills-v-wyman/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ochlocracy.org/law</link>
	<description>Trivial Tales from the Fringes of Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:38:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Consideration Revisited</title>
		<link>http://ochlocracy.org/law/consideration-revisited/32</link>
		<comments>http://ochlocracy.org/law/consideration-revisited/32#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mr Law</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alaska Packers Assn v Domenico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian Construction v Brighenti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dahl v Hem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dyer v National By-Products Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forebearance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hamer v sidway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hohnson v otterbein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mills v Wyman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moore v Elmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newman & Snell's State Bank v Hunter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stilk v Myrick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unilateral contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Webb v McGowin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ochlocracy.org/law/?p=32</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is always a lot of ambiguity when it comes to arguably contract law&#8217;s most important doctrine. I mean of course consideration. What is it? Why is it so important? Why is is so hard to understand?
Here&#8217;s the deal: consideration is complicated first of all because the term &#8220;consideration&#8221; is so unhelpful. The best one [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ochlocracy.org/law/consideration-revisited/32/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
