Talk:Deed

Quasi-contract

"Deeds can best be described as quasi-contracts, requiring the agreement of more than one person." I think that the term "quasi-contract" is used incorrectly. At least in U.S. law, the term quasi-contract refers to unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and other agreements that are not supported by consideration. Although a property deed could arguably be described as a quasi-contract, I don't think that is the "best" way to described them. But deeds are "contract-like" if that is what is meant.

No they aren't! At least not necessarily. What on earth the writers of this article would make of a deed poll baffles me. The entire article seems to be written on the assumption that (at the very least) all deeds are indentures, which is not true. Could someone who actually knows what legal system all this is supposed to apply in please try to clean up the article and make it clear where a lot of this does apply? Francis Davey (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this article is quite right. In UK law, at least, a deed does not require the "mutual agreement of more than one person", as stated in the intro. The intro is also inconsistent with that later statement that "The main difference between Deed and an agreement is that the deed is generally signed by only one person / party". The latter is more correct, I would say.

A deed is enforceable without the need to show consideration, so a deed will be enforceable if executed by a single person as a deed. (A "covenant", as I understand it, is a promise in a deed.) However, it is not uncommon to execute an agreement as a deed (and a deed will therefore be commonly signed by multiple parties) if there is any doubt about consideration.

Deeds are "contract-like" in that they both create enforceable promises. However, as one of the fundamental features of a contract is mutual obligations, I'm not sure that calling deeds "contract-like" is entirely helpful either.

Any non-UK people have a view on use of the word "deed"? I think I recall a conversation with a US lawyer where he said the term was used a little differently... Westmorlandia (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The concept of a pan-jurisdictional resource is flawed. In attempting to discuss legal concepts that cover several jurisdictions, the result is unreliability and low confidence in the articles available. This problem is made worse by authors often not bothering to specify which jurisdiction they are discussing. At best, Wikipedia law articles cannot be used with confidence, but more commonly, they are innaccurate and too generalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.177.101 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we start again?

This article is, as Francis Davey says, terrible. Is anyone else watching it? Would it be worth just starting again, with a description of the current law of England? Lawdroid (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's terrible. I did the minimal thing and added a sensible explanation to the start. I hope it's an iota better, at least. GolDDranks (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)