Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If promissory obligation is grounded in reliance rather than acceptance, the promisee's freedom of acceptance is incidental, not constitutive.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Acceptance is the voluntary committal that distinguishes promises from mere predictions or statements of intent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reliance alone cannot generate obligation without prior agreement; reliance is only a remedy when acceptance occurred.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Treating acceptance as incidental makes promissory obligation parasitic on promisee behavior rather than mutual commitment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Promissory obligations arise when a promisee relies on a promisor's words and restructures their position accordingly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The promisee's acceptance is merely how we identify reliance; it confirms but doesn't create the obligation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A promisor can be bound even when the promisee hasn't explicitly accepted, if the promisee has reasonably relied.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.