Contract law DOES require "consideration" to form a contract, but consideration indicates dickering (negotiation) more than it indicates a set amount of money. (Yes, I am a lawyer too.) The dollar amount needed to distinguish a real estate conveyance that is a bona fide sale from one that is a gift is a separate issue from contract law, so I empathize with your disagreement with the grandparent comment.
"The dollar amount needed to distinguish a real estate conveyance that is a bona fide sale from one that is a gift is a separate issue from contract law"
I'm not sure why you think i'm talking about a non-contract law issue
There are many issues with gifts, some in real estate, some in torts, and some in contract law.
Plenty of jurisdictions allow disguised gifts (the classic example being nominal consideration, such as $1 for property) to be looked behind, and because they classify the consideration as a gift rather than anything real, do not form a valid contract. That does not mean it occurs in all cases, or that there aren't jurisdictions where i can have a legally binding agreement to buy a house for a dollar (there are plenty)
However, if you don't believe this is a valid issue in the theory of contract formation, i'm not sure what to tell you.
Maybe this helps?
Restatement (second) of contracts
§71. REQUIREMENT OF EXCHANGE; TYPES OF EXCHANGE
...
b. "Bargained for." ...
Moreover, a mere pretense of bargain does not suffice, as
where there is a false recital of consideration or where the
purported consideration is merely nominal. In such cases
there is no consideration and the promise is enforced, if at
all, as a promise binding without consideration under §§82-
94
There are plenty of jurisdictions that follow the restatement view.
Would it make you feel better if I changed the example to sell ing a car to a relative for $1?
Or do you think this is also a legally enforceable contract in all jurisdictions?
(It's not, it would be enforceable in the 'still completely common law' jurisdictions, but not in the 'we take the restatement view' jurisdictions)
I do agree there are separate issues as to whether it is specifically legal to convey real estate in certain situations, but this is completely separate from the general theory of whether you can form a valid contract this way. Even that is different than the question of whether you could get anything, even if the contract was unenforceable (IE some kind of quasi-contract recovery).
However, this is all pretty useless pedantry (though i'm happy to argue about it, since lawyering is fun). I used an example that is legally correct in plenty of jurisdictions to make a point, and the complaint seems to be not about the point I made (that it's not a sham), but about the specific example, and in this case, like everything else, it depends on the jurisdiction.
I could have written a completely legally accurate comment (at least for the US) by adding another few sentences that describe the possible outcomes in all jurisdictions, but it would not be very effective writing :)
