Talk:Option contract

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of Option (law) was merged into Option contract on November 5, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

You do not need consideration to Form an option.

(Xodoz (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's not what the article says and from Contract Law 101 I seem to remember that consideration is vital for any contract (along with an offer and acceptance). --kingboyk (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I have updated the article (albeit a decade later) to reflect your insighftul criticism. Streamline8988 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does an option contract require strict (exact) performance by the offeree or does the doctrine of substantial performance apply? If the option contract can be charachterized by a bilateral contract then substantial performace should do -- if unilateral, then only exact performace will do.

The problem becomes acute in renewal of rental leases where a condition precedent could be that "there are no breaches during the orginal term of the lease". If a small breach does occur (i.e., a late payment) and which is corrected quick, can the optionee revoke the option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravchaw (talk • contribs)

It seems to me that these two articles are talking about two different aspects of the same thing, at least from a legal standpoint. I can understand why it would be good to have a different article for options as used in financial markets, but to have two different articles on options as they exist with respect to ordinary transactions seems a bit redundant. --Eastlaw 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur. There's just too many definitions of option running around and this seems like a sensible proposal to collapse two of them. Ronnotel 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt totally agree that "option" in relation to contract should be merged with that of law generally, the reason for the vast definitions of "option" is merely that within the commercial / trusts are of law they have a differing context to that within contract. Contract "options" purely contain that of a unilateral contract and affect the law in this way, where as in commercial law it is required in a sale of goods respect, in more particular the hire - purchase of goods, indeed the meaning of "option" is wide in its nature, but is required to be this way. A simple definition would not provide enough scope for the differing areas of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.48.195 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the merge tag. It's kindof funny that this sat here for two years without anyone caring, but yes, I concur it should be merged. --B (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]